Slashdot Mirror
'Think Tank' Issues Microsoft-Funded Troll
dlur (among many others) writes: "According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft."
The Register's story
is good too.
All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure. This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense
and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the
V-22 Osprey deathplane.
Also, see what their coin-operated policy dispenser spat out for
internet privacy
(eat what you're fed) and
antitrust
(advantage of Microsoft monopoly: "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one
driver").
We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...
It seems to me that when software is created by "hackers" and made by "hackers" that they would as a team know what to do to make the software as hackerfree as possible. By making a product open source, it is only sensible that it is then open to be studied by hackers and exploited by malicious hackers but at the same time, just as genius "white-hat" hackers can quickly repair these security flaws thus keeping the software secure. So, how then can it be possible to say that Open Source is more hacker prone than proprietary software? Beats me
"This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane."
Nice to see no politics being spouted here.
>i>from the insitute-and-prostitute-share-a-lot-of-letters dept.
They share even more letters if you spell institute correctly.
Open source would have a much better security record if Sendmail were killed off.
I like how /. offers up tidbits like missle defense is "unstabilizing and unworkable" without offering a modicum of reasoning, which to me is just further evidence that they don't know what they're talking about.
Seems that they are just that desperate to discredit Microsoft that they will resort to silly attacks about things they know nothing about.
What I do not understand is why there aren't any similar groups for the OpenSource / non-Darkside avocations.
If MS can fund groups such as these to spill forth what is obviously [then again, not much is obvious it seems to the 90% of the population] utter trash, surely we [ non-MS ] can do the same.
If this group spills out such toxic waste words as these, why does it gain so much attention in the general public?
Is there any reason why we cannot write an article stating "Microsoft Closed source enables Terrorists to easially render 90% of the information market paralized"... (after all, there is far more 'hard' evidence in the form of email-worms etc than there is behind what has been written in this article).
You must be new here?
They're not running their touted monoculture on their own web servers!
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
LOL! How "ingenious" to tie a "terrorist threat" to open source software! Well, we could equally say that government agencies are compromising their network security by relying on exploit-prone, low quality software products supplied by Micro$oft.
I am a lone out post of open source in the military agency where I work. My solution, just show them the NSA funded SE Linux information.
Who are the green suiters going to trust? A bunch of paid "think tank" lackeys or the good ole spooks behind the triple fence?
So far NSA's advocacy has been used to let me get away with all kinds of open source implementation.
Of course, NSA has an agenda too I'm sure but that's between the military and NSA.
This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense....
You are aware, are you not, that the Reagan administration's emphasis on missile defense technology forced the Soviets to spend billions on research into their own missile defense systems? And that that level of unsustainable spending contributed directly to the collapse of the Soviet economy, and the eventual dissolution of the USSR as a political entity?
Just spreading around a little knowledge.
I'm amazed! For the first time ever (I think), I heard about this *before* it got posted to slashdot. Ironically enough, it was sent to me by a Mac Zealot. As for them being funded by Microsoft, anyone have any evidence to back this up?
Nathan's blog
You retard. The think tank won this troll contest, why aren't you shutting up? Even an experienced troll like myself has no words.... what can you say to top this? We should just keep quiet, and try to learn something. We can only become stronger slashdot trolls for our patience and silence.
Besides, we can probably hook up with some $100kpy think tank jobs.
Subject: "Opening the Open Source Debate"
Date: 31 May 2002 15:45:59 +1200
Some references you might wish to consider before publishing your article "Opening the Open Source Debate"
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi ?bw.053002/221502375
Bruce Schneier, one of the recognized leading expert on computer security on Kerckhoffs' Principle and Secrecy, Security, and Obscurity of software.
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#1
Dr. Blaine Burnham, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA), gives an keynote speech overview of current encryption and security technologies and outlines possible strategies for future defense.
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html?st ream_id=411
Also you might wish to address the issue of Microsoft's disproportionately high number of open vulnerabilities in its Internet Explorer components. All of which where discovered without access to the source code.
http://jscript.dk/unpatched/
Richard Purcell, Microsoft's director of corporate privacy, has recently stated that any major improvement in regard to the security of it's products may be at least "5, 10 years, maybe".
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may 2002/tc20020523_6029.htm
As for the issue of Trojan horse injection into open source code, it is far from being an open source only issue.
http://www.eeggs.com/
Or were all the "Easter Eggs" currently found in Microsoft's products officially authorized?
If you are looking for a methodology for providing a suitably secure and hardened solution, start with a real world example.
http://www.openbsd.org/security.html
I welcome any open debate.
After all, we're now pretty well aware that people are not looking through open source code looking for bugs and back doors: yes, flaws get discovered, but it's usually through the "exploit-patch-fix" cycle, rather than pre-emptive security work.
OpenBSD is, of course, not dead and a very notable exception.
Sometimes secrecy is useful in security: ask the NSA; yes, in theory, all of their algorithms would stand if they were placed in the open.
But they still keep them secret because it is one more obstacle for an intruder to have to overcome to compromise a system.
Of course, none of this matters because we're talking about M$, those nice folks asking to keep with Windows source secret because it has security flaws large enough to be considered economic and national security risks.
But, in theory, I think there are times when closes source might be the way to go.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
I worked for awhile at the plant that manufactured the V-22. Lots of good people, I believe that of the accidents that occured the majority were a result of maintenance issues and not design flaws, although there were design issues. However many other defense craft have had design issues early in development, often resulting in fatal crashes. It's a sad but common occurance, people die in development of new aircraft, people also die constructing buildings and bridges, ships, etc.. it's nothing new. I would not call the v-22 a "deathplane" I would happily fly in it any day.
However, how can we have more companies like Microsoft when that very article is condoning a monolopy? Yes, I acknowledge that they're probably talking about 'one monopoly in each market'. However, we all know that Microsoft is trying to take over as many markets as possible. How far away is Microsoft-branded Vegemite? :)
Stupid. Totally, absolutely stupid.
just like smoking weed gives money to terrorists.
... that we run it on our OWN damn servers:
$ httptype www.adti.net
Rapidsite/Apa/1.3.20 (Unix) FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6
Who wants to place bets as to when Microsoft learns of this, and promptly switches their systems?
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
The purpose of Open Source projects is to offer technology in an open and cheaper manner than traditional vendors. If what ADTI is implying that because of Open Source anyone, including terrorists, can use computers for free then I guess it is true.
;-)
What would be the contrary to this? Would the ADTI really have us believe that hacking with paid closed software is better than open? If Open Source projects can't expect or know the ultimate intent of the users of the software then why would any closed vendor would? It sounds like ADTI does! I guess they are brilliant.
And MySQL.
And OpenSSH.
And Tomcat.
And wu-ftpd.
And PHP.
And squid.
And mod_ssl.
...
You know, if we reduced it to just the kernel running on an isolated box locked in a secured meat locker, and you throw away the key.
But, qmail is better =)
that for a cool million US$, they would state that gore should have won the election? More likely, it would only take about .5 million US$.
"How cruelly ironic, that the man who celebrated the spirit of volunteerism
he found in communities all across the new nation he chronicled has his good
name usurped and sullied by the likes of these."
As for the Osprey, the most recent one to crash came down not too far (which is to say not far enough) from my backyard, so I checked out what they had to say about that, but to be fair, they wrote it 5 years ago, before anybody but the manufacturers had a chance to really test its airworthiness.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Hope nobody thinks this is a troll...
Doesn't the fact that they're stating this just mean that in order to be more secure, there's more of an incentive to *switch* to open source systems to prevent these sorts of hackers?
There's a lot more to say, but I'm sure the more informative and insightful posts will get modded up for all to see.
The only reason I'm not 100% open source yet, is because of small issues like games and web browsing. They're getting better, but I'm not at that point where I'd be equally satisfied with both systems. Otherwise I'd have jump ship a long long long time ago in this particular galaxy thank you very much....
ps: Jagged Alliance 2 is on Linux...*sweeeeT*
Hacker making software knowing more to stop hackers is such bullshit. Most hackers that use the term like that can't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Saying hackers would make better code is fine, but get a clue that when you use the term "Hacker" no matter how you mean it the mainstream media will always see it as "EVIL" period. No one but the people that profess that hacking is a cleaver way to solve a problem think that it means a way to solve a problem. So what is that 5% if your lucky? Hell they even get pissed when someone else says it if they are not "hackers".
For the love of Pete, everyone else hears hackers making software know how to protect you from the hackers, err sorry crackers, er wackers, black hat, grey hat, white hat, red hat, tinky winky hat...ahh hell you know the "bad hackers" are going to do it also and make us pay. BAh...Your going to code a back door I know it. To push the point they will point to the C compiler...eww but the was to prove a point right?!
Slashdot and the legions of ethical hackers need to learn that the word hacker will forever be seen in the eyes of 90% of the world as bad. Plus no one is going to believe that a bunch of people coding for free is going to not do something devious to make money, despite what you may really do. Those same 90% of the world that see hacking as a bad word also believe people don't work for free. I guess that guy that just loves to dig ditches because it is fun is shit out of luck, because really he is not scoping out anything to steal.
-4 anti-karma whore, I will enjoy the mod-down as you just can't help but to hate the truth.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
that every 'think tank' I hear about has some particular groups best interests in mind. And those groups are usually big corporations. I guess they're the only ones that can afford to fund these think tanks and pay for their expensive reports.
After all, thinking isn't free...
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
From theregister article:
"This could explain why a group purportedly devoted to the 'perfection of democracy' would, with a straight face, recommend the MCSE as a qualification for adult participation in a democratic economy superior to a university degree. "
I don't see why a Minesweeper Consultant Solitare Expert is needed for a good democracy. Well I guess it can't hurt.
And I don't think it's any coincidence that the Russians agreed along with the US to reduce the nuclear arms we aim at each other only after W. decided to terminate the ABM treaty with the non-existent Soviet Union (just who the fuck was the US supposed to be in a treaty with anyway? Might as well have been the Roman Empire...)
Just how the fuck is it destabilizing to attempt to prevent a nuclear killing of millions upon millions of US citizens? Are we supposed to be held hostage if Dum Fuk Kim wants to roll into South Korea because his backasswards economy can't feed his people?
Of course, the real reason lefties HATE any form of missile defense is that it would enhance US power and influence over the rest of the world.
"Let's just talk" international relations are working really well in the Middle East nowadays, aren't they?
Don't you think that if your software has a bug and you have its source released to the crowd, people that want to take advantage of this will do it?
,and a good one will, design or apply an already designed patch in hours. You don't have to wait for MS good will to serve your needs. Say that historically Linux has proved itself as a more secure option.
It never crossed my mind that free software doesn't have any bugs at all. It's naive to think none will ever be able to crack your box, even if you run the latest versions and patches.
What I do understand, is that in free software your bugs are discovered and fixed faster than in proprietary, because there are (potentially) more developers and users.
Is it a lie? Hell no. It's manipulation of information? Perhaps. If you are an employe of any entity, be it the governament or a private company, and your boss asks you "With our source there for anyone to have a look, if they find a bug, can you swear that they won't crack us"?
I wouldn't answer yes. I can't answer yes, it's impossible. It's almost impossible to have a bug-free software, since almost all software development efforts always have a reason to add more features, or to make it more compatible with new products.
But, you can give good answers to this questions. Say, for example, that Linux has fewer bugs than Windows. Say that Apache, that runs most of the servers at the whole world, has caused LESS financial damage because of bugs than almost any IIS virus, worm, or whatever.
The manipulation of information comes from this side. When some people can't address the Linux problem logically, they appeal to your emotion. They cite terrorists because that's the great evil of the moment. They touch deep into your fears, and without few 1 + 1 proof.
So, attack with the same power. Say that while it's true that terrorists might have a chance to attack one server because they have found a bug, they won't spread the damages because system administrators can
What will they do, change the past?
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
[Apologies for this being slightly off-topic, but chrissy asked for it.]
You should have gone with your initial impression. Not running this, I mean. Could you please try to stuff more leftist tripe in your next article summary?
"destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense"? I'm sure most people didn't think anything like that laptop sitting on your desk was possible back in the early 1900's. The technology for reasonable missile defense may be in its infancy now, but that doesn't mean it always will be.
For those who argue missile defense is just another unnecessary aggressive move on the USA's part, I'd say that defensive weapons are the least threatening because they are the ones least likely to get us involved in foreign entanglements: it's hard to send a stationary anti-ballistic missile launcher into a land war in Asia.
And for those who argue it is unnecessary because terrorists will just ship a bomb over on a cargo freighter, I'd ask you if you keep your windows unlocked over vacation just because a thief is most likely to try the front door first. If we start covering our bases now, we won't be caught with our pants down when every rogue nation in the world has a long-range ballistic missile and a wacko with his finger on the button.
As for "deathplane"...I'm not even sure I should touch that one. I'll just say that deathplanes like it are the very reason east coasters aren't speaking German and west coasters Japanese. As a libertarian, I believe it's your right to avoid compulsory service in the military, but you should at least have the decency to respect those who fought and died for your freedom.
[ home ]
Well, they're right-on about the drivers. It's great knowing that 99% of the time I can plug in my hardware and it will work with no problem on Win2K. I wish I could say the same for Linux, Solaris, etc.
It's easy enough to go to securityfocus.com and read about all holes in Windows. What about IE patches that release new holes. Next day IE patch was released, there was info what new holes it opens.
/.ers couldn't put up one intelligent research in one month (at least not enough usable to be called alpha state research). All topics of completely different variety and all topics are connected to Microsoft aims.
.... who knows... :-)
It's obvious that they are MS funded. Look at the topics, just as bloated as Microsoft itself, in the same breath they are talking about technology, democracy in china, cuba, switzerland, environment, immigration, monetary fund, defence, education, africa and intelectual property.
I wonder how many people takes to create such research. I mean we're not talking about lollypops here. All topics are covering such complete topics, that whole bunch of
I guess my computer bussines days are over, next week I'm gonna be a rocket scientist, after next week,
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Who cares what a "Think Tank" says?
Why does this organization get any press anyway? What exactly is a think tank, and what credentials does it have? I mean, is this anything more than an organization dedicated to producing biased press releases?
The organization's mission statement is completely devoid of meaning.
"Since 1988, the Alexis de tocqueville Instition has studied the spread and perfection of democracy around the world. In this, we follow the principles of Tocqueville himself... At the root, perhaps, is a populist belief in the basic goodness, perfectability, and nobility of mankind and of the human community...Operationally, adTI strives to emulate what one scholar has termed Tocqueville's 'omnicurious style of journalism."
Say what? I mean, read the whole mission statement. It says absolutely nothing using a lot of jackoff big words. I don't get what any of it has to do w/de Tocqueville, a french author who reported on US culture a hundred fifty years ago.
The fact that MS is funding this-- WHO ARE THESE GUYS?! I mean, why would anyone even CARE or bother reporting their opinion?
Sometimes I think these organizations exist soley to have their representatives on talk shows and to have a semblance of a structure from which to spew their opinion.
Yes, like geeks, we must use the tools we have.
From: 8axxx0r l33t
Subject: DESTROY PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE
Message:
First Post!
Heya! Did you know Bill Gates' ASCII code number is 666? That he is the root of all evil?
That there's an alternative to monopoly? And it's FREE (note: as in freedom AND as in beer).
ACT NOW and access Slashdot's webpage, news for normal people, stuff that matter. NO pop-ups, neither pop-unders, ROTFLMAO... Insightful and funny bewolfed comments from all over the world!
Thanks for your time,
l33t.
PS: This is not spam. I hate spams.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
A Microsoft funded ThinkTank finds that OSS, FSF LINUX GNU/Linux is dangerous and harmful to kids? When will MS begin to rely on the quality of their products to compete instead of underhanded tactics? Microsoft's tactics and antics is bordering on the bizarre. (Mad paranoid scientist kinda bizarre)
Is that like "Think Geek"?
This is gold. Frickin' gold. Quoting the Register:
Oh, we have the highest opinion of HR PHB's
thats really all you had to say ya know.
thirsty*i^2
"Ya I finished that last week, it just doesn't work"
The more acceptance OSS gains, the worse trolling from M$ monkeys we'll see. When that graph reaches critical peak it will start declining at a very, very steep angle, hopefully bringing down M$, as well.
/.ers got used to trolls but I expect 700+ posts here, anyway.
Absolutely no sense of humor.
As for "deathplane"...I'm not even sure I should touch that one. I'll just say that deathplanes like it are the very reason east coasters aren't speaking German and west coasters Japanese.
The V-22 Osprey is a deathplane not because it is useful for killing foes, but rather because it tends to kill the pilot instead. The only way this piece of garbage would have helped in WWII is if it by accident crash landed on top of german or japanese soldiers.
And that's not all! For an extra 25% I'll make a press release to a selection of the top 25 newspapers worldwide and for an extra 50% I'll submit the story to Slashdot.
Get your reports here! Get your reports here!
-- SIGFPE
"And don't forget Kerckhoff's assumption: If the strength of your new cryptosystem relies on the fact that the attacker does not know the algorithm's inner workings, you're sunk. If you believe that keeping the algorithm's insides secret improves the security of your cryptosystem more than letting the academic community analyze it, you're wrong. And if you think that someone won't disassemble your code and reverse-engineer your algorithm, you're naive. The best algorithms we have are ones that have been made public, have been attacked by the world's best cryptographers for years, and are still unbreakable."
--Bruce Scheier; Applied Cryptography (Second Edition); page 7
This seems to apply perfectly to this latest FUD about open source software.
I don't know if this true but I read in a recent ask slashdot that microsoft will show its source code to anyone who can afford it. The source code could easily get stolen and could eventually wind up in terrorist hands. So it would be no better than open source.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Damn I need to quit smoking this stuff. That's one hell of a leap. So I guess our president supported the people who attacked us since he too was a drug user.
Every so often I'd see it flying over my workplace. It looked like something out of, out of... I don't know. A surreal dream. As for it crashing it can't match the old F-111.
Are you trolling, or have you had your head in the sand for the past year? The Osprey is referred to as a "deathplane" because it kills our own troops, not the other guys'. If that line had been meant as an antiwar screed, they'd have picked a bomber to castigate, or something.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I'm sorry to be a party-pooper, but where's the evidence that they take money from Microsoft? The ZDNet article says nothing about that, and the talkback comments (at least the few dozen that I read) provide no evidence along those lines, either. The Register says that Richard Smith says that they take money from Microsoft, though they present no evidence along those lines. Smith's a cool guy and all, and he's got a good track record, but I'm going to need a little more than a second-hand non-credited reference to believe this.
I did a little poking around and a little Googling, but was unable to come up with any evidence on my own.
So, please, could somebody enlighten me?
-Waldo Jaquith
is it just me, or does the number of articles about government X/corporation Y adopting open source seem to be snowballing lately?
Google search for al qaeda and linux
Those search results speak for themselves on who helps terrorists.
The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
They will finally have created something that doesn't suck.
There is nothing "leftist" about making a case for the fact that a missile defense system has a low probability of achieving its objectives. There are very strong arguments in favor of that position. There is also the issue that the Bush administration has had a fixation on missile defense. A case can be made that this fixation was partly responsible for a lack of focus on domestic security (see the Hart-Rudman domestic security report that was virtually ignored by the Bush administration.)
Finally, as an ex-Boeing Helicopters employee, ex-chairman of the North Dakota Libertarian Party, and U.S. Air Force veteran, I find your remarks about the author's decency out of line. Look, the ability to critique the government is one of the most important rights and responsibilities we have. And this right is steadly being eroded as we speak. As a Libertarian, you should be speaking out about that.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
This group also claimed, during Congressional probes into tobacco company fraud, that cigarettes and tobacco products were not harmful to your health. From this memo by a director of the World Health Organization:
l ous.htm
"In addition to creating front groups and contributing funds to groups that have a mission broad enough to carry some of the tobacco industry's goals, the tobacco companies also use publications by allegedly independent think tanks, such as the Virginia-based Alexis De Tocqueville Institution. This group's 1994 report "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination" criticizes the US Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment methods in 4 areas: environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous cleanup. It dismisses in its first chapter the agency's risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke, using arguments similar to the tobacco industry's "junk science" arguments described by Ong and Glantz. "
It seems Microsoft is making some strange bedfellows.
Sources:
http://www.smokefreeforhealth.org/studies/YachBia
ZDNet Post
Anyone who has a life wouldn't waste their time in a think tank. Anyone worth their salt with the brains and skills will be at a research facility building stuff, not needlessly thinking about what they might like to consider inventing, if they weren't so busy thinking.
The break throughs in the last two centuries WERE NOT made by people in "think tanks". They were created by "men of action" as Count Rugan would say from the Princess Bride. Look at men like benjamin franklin, edison, and the WOZ. Think tanks are for lazy people who would rather leach off society than get their hands dirty.
The only thing the article reveals is how little news is news today from Zdnet.
"V-22 Osprey deathplane"
Written by a melodramatic, 8th grade, spawn of granola crunching California hippies?
that thinkthank is very pro-republican. very, very pro republican. Read more into the site, you'll see it, all the pro defense and pro bush comments. Or maybe i have selective sight(Not being sarcastic, i may actually only see what i want to)
"Humanize war? You might as talk about humanizing hell!" -- British Admiral Jacky Fisher
"The white paper, Opening the Open Source Debate, from the Alexis de
.. closed source is NOT a "Gate" that blocks
h tml
r ticles/A600 50-2002May22.html
.gov likes it just fine ;-)
Tocqueville Institution (ADTI) will suggest that open source opens the
gates to hackers and terrorists."
My $0.02:
... First of all, there ARE NO GATES! All software contains bugs,
sometimes exploitable.
hacking... yes, exactly: nimda, codeRed, klez, iloveyou, and just about
every other "virus" reported in the last two years... blah blah blah...
...shitty analogy...
See: Publications and Accomplishments
http://www.adti.net/pubsaccomps.
They don't exactly seem to be experts in any field of computers,
networks, or security that I can tell. They did some reports for more
traditional defense related topics several years ago, but thats it. They
are however, very good at reporting on controversial issues, mainly
politcal in nature. Hmmm..
Here's a question. Of the total number of security problems reported
regarding closed vs. open source products, what percentage were
pre-emptive fixes reported by whitehats, v.s. those exploited and thus
forced to be officially reported?
My point is... a bug is a bug, but it's a hell of a lot better if it's
patched before it's ever exploited. So it's totally wrong to look purely
at # of reported security problems in product XYZ. I would expect an
open source product to have a significantly higher # of reported
problems. That's a good thing IMO, since that means there's less of them
lurking.
The bottom line: Everything has bugs. More eyes, less bugs. More secure.
Simple. Now would someone try and explain that to these anti-open-source
nitwits?
Oh, and may I point out: (already reported)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/a
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/
It seems like our
-Mark Renouf
Of course, outraged opensource hackers could try and attack this insitute's webserver, but the thing is using open source software, so no r00t today.
Trolling seens to go both ways thes days (disgustingly so) but it's interesting to note how many MS security vulnerabilities are discovered without even having the code at hand. As far as trolling goes, it seems useful for swaying the opinions of bean-counters and such. BTW, the NSA's SELINUX rocks!!! http://www.nsa.gov/selinux
C|N>K
For those who argue missile defense is just another unnecessary aggressive move on the USA's part, I'd say that defensive weapons are the least threatening because they are the ones least likely to get us involved in foreign entanglements:
Okay, then develop your missile-shield technology and give it to every single damn country in the world - hey, it's defensive technology, isn't it? Then that wouldn't represent a security risk, but just make everyone safer, right?
The problem with missile defense is that it upsets the balance of power. Which means that, to compete, nuclear powers have to build more missiles, in the hope of reaching equilibrium again (hoping that a few might get through). Why is nuclear equilibrium important? Because mutually assured destruction is the best deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. Who cares, if the U.S. has a missile shield, you say? Well, even if that missile shield was effective (which it is not guaranteed to be, despite the gigantic cost), there is this little thing called "the rest of the world"...
So, do you agree that the U.S. should share it's defensive, non-threatening missile defense technology with the rest of the world, then?
Reminder: find a new sig
Nevertheless the author cheerfully reports that "87 per cent of Human Resource managers surveyed believed that MCSE's are equally or more successful than college graduates."
Right you are! Why waste money on those useless traditional education system, while we could save a lot of money just to get MCSE for kids!
Look at these kids, see how much money their parents have saved and they can obtain an employment straight out of grade school!
Simple, easy front page stories
...
We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so
Wish I'd known that when I submitted a story. Oh well, not that I'm gripeing* or anything
*obligatory spelling mistake
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
Absolutely! I agree! We should license it to other countries!
Kinda takes the wind out of your sails, doesn't it?
[ home ]
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zd
Hey, can anyone provide any proof besides some guy's say-so that AdTI takes money from Microsoft?
I'm looking for hard evidence here, not just "it stands to reason", and "of course they do - they support Microsoft".
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
i guess you havent tryed a late model Linux distro like Slackware8 or Redhat7.1 ,7.2 or 7.3 with Mozilla's latest release candidate (RC-3) it is much more secure than M$ IE and blocks popups nicely without third party apps...
My mistake.
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zdnn/ tb.tpt/%40thread%4040166%40forward%401%40D-,D%40AL L/@article@40166?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1&PAGETP=2100& NODEID=1104&SHOST=zdnet.com.com
Well, lets say we believe in them, so the day they publish their study we turn off all computers running any kind of open source software :)
I was reading playboy today, someone asked why the pages had static, its because of the highspeed printing, also does the high colors. If they started printing in black and white, the terrorists win. lol
These guys are right on the money (a pun, get it?).
Free speech poses huge security risks as well. And of course, those rights are under attack -- it's the patriotic thing to do, right? We can't have people expressing ideas and opinions in open, uncontrolled forums all willy-nilly -- anything could happen!
Well, I think that we should all rally 'round the flag, snuff out all this non-productive Free Speech and Open Source nonsense, and go sign up for our M$ Passport accounts. And you may want to get in line for that personal id barcode tatoo too, because you'll be needing it sooner or later.
You know it's true, you read it on Slashdot!
Huh. Weird how the HR managers assumed that the MCSE's were not college graduates... ;-)
What the hell is this? Is Slashdot SO anti-MS that they are unwilling to post stories if they have some of their propaganda in there? Over the years I've come to appreciate the variety of Slashdot submissions for covering such a wide range of industries and viewpoints, but it scares me to think that a lot of editorial censorship is going on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-MS guy and I'm not trying to drum up arguments for the purpose of getting flamed, I'm just a guy who'd like to see Slashdot editors remain a bit impartial. Present the news and the stories, leave the scathing comments to the readers who submit comments. Just my 2c.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
I'm a capitalist-socialist. Believe it or not it works for me.
That license is GNU/MissleGuidance
I think it would be awesome if every nation on earth had ABMs! I would definitely feel much safer.
On the other hand, I have to keep installing bigger locks on my door, because the thieves keep building bigger picks. Definitely an upset of power there.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
how open source might facilitate efforts to disrupt or sabotage electronic commerce, air traffic control or even sensitive surveillance systems
Those three items, "electronic commerce, air traffic control or even sensitive surveillance systems", sounds suspiciously like a speech delivered by Ashcroft when he was trying to pass the anti-terrorism bill after 9/11. It's sad that companies/think tanks/institutions will play on public fears just to gain political favor or gain recognition.
When the public fears something it gives politicans the edge they need to advance in office or pass bills that would normally never have a chance to make it through congress. Then when people adjust to the new situation, which generally happens in a few months they look back and realize what happened. By then unfortunatly it is usually to late to do anything about it.
Fear is humanities worst enemy, it clouds judgement and gives people unnecessary power over us.
Complete Bonk.
Open Source is more secure as the problems are fixed faster than closed source, proprietary systems.
All software, closed and open have vulnerabilities.
However, you can't PROACTIVELY peer review and fix closed proprietary software continuously, unlike open source software.
Since you cannot proactively secure closed software, who in God's name would believe such a completely ludicrous report?
God help us ALL if anyone takes those sorts of arguments and so called "studies" seriously.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
"coin-operated policy dispenser" lol...love that.
It isn't being called a deathplane because it's been used to drop napalm on villagers or something. It's notorious for killing test pilots. A couple of years ago it seemed like there was a story every month or two about an Osprey crash. Some background can be had here:
http://www.verticraft.com/v22_crashes.htm
One sentence in there just about admits that Microsoft writes crappy software, but that's ok, because they want to make a profit from crappy software.
Many argue that its programmers have turned out shoddy programs, but the firm's objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per se. By the profit criterion, Microsoft has been one of the greatest companies in the history of this country.
What a great big bunch of crap! It actually turns my stomach sometimes to even work in the same industry as those people.
Microsoft is planning a closed-source car. The keys to the car are, of course, proprietary so consumers are not allowed to use them. However, Microsoft will leave the windows open all the time so consumers are free to use the car at anytime as long as they agree never to pop-the-hood. This car is not available for lease although you and every passenger must purchase a special "per-seat" licence of Car 1.0 for at least twice the cost of a regular open-sourced car.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
Suppose they're right, and OpenSource is easier to hack. Doesn't fixing the bugs count? Would you rather wait for MS to admit the bug, fix the bug, release the fix, etc. or let all the open source crowd fix it in an hour?
;-)
(i submitted this story monday morning, and it was rejected....oh well
My only problem with viagra is that I had to piss like a race horse, and had to wait 2 hours for my raging hard on to subside!
I mean, come on!
This is like being surprised that the Tolly Group gave a good report to a product.
When you pay for a review or analysis, you get exactly what you want. This is no different than the Mindcraft "study" that was biased.
When a reputable group/publication comes out with an unbiased study that says these same things then you should get upset. Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors, FUD and MUD.
Nothing to see here.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
An old woman walks into a drugstore and asks a pharmacist, "Do you sell Viagra here?"
"Why, yes we do ma'am", he replies.
"Can you get it over the counter?"
He pauses a second, then answers, "I suppose I could if I took two."
Cheap ass bastards.
They should shell out some green on their own smokes instead of standing close and inhaling deeply so as to mooch off my second hand smoke.
Whever I hear people talk about the unworkability of the strategic defense initiative, I have to look across the office to the 1 foot cube of steel with a 3 inch hole all the way through it from a sub-second burst from a thermal pumped free electron laser, and just laugh out loud.
Speaking of Washington whores. Microsoft
funds the ITAA, The Information Technology
Association of America. The ITAA is run
by the guy who made his fame by busting the
United Farm Workers Union, Harris Miller.
Miller is jerk who drives a big Mercedes recklessly
at 95 mph with "ITAA" vanity tags. What a crock.
Buying shares in LNUX is about as smart as driving down the street and throwing your money out the window. Slashdot represents the most over-hyped stock in the short lived dot.con boom. If you have shares in LNUX, you should have sold above $200.00, now they are at $0.81, what a bummer dude!
This story just might wind up biting Microsoft in the ass; if the rest of the sharks in the press start smelling blood in the water.
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Dear Ann,
My fiance, "CmdrTaco," and I will be celebrating getting married in a few months. In the past year, we have spent 342 nights recompiling the linux kernel because CmdrTaco loves open source.
A few years ago, Joe went online and discovered a weblog for linux users who post about "KDE" over the Internet. Since then, he has Linus Torvalds on his mind all the time. He has gone to LUGs without me several times for long weekends. Now he tells me he wants to spend every Saturday night there, by himself, for the rest of his life. I was very hurt when he said he wants to go hang out with hippies that don't bathe instead of having sex, as we had plannedto try out on our wedding night.
We live in Michigan, and soap and deodorant are not inexpensive items. Right now, we should be saving money, since the company he works for ill soon be bakrupt. CmdrTaco says he'd rather spend the money purchasing "Free" software.
I am feeling abandoned and cheated. Is it unreasonable for me to object to open source development? Sign me . . .
Competing with kleenex
The problem with missile defense is that it upsets the balance of power.
You want to bring Balance to the Force?
Really, which is worse, one sided opinion and bias from the opensource community that mascarades occasionally as the news? or... MS anti-trust politics and BS?
Gotta love comments about that 'death plane' V22 osprey, which is in fact not a bad AC/Helo/Whichever at all... Congress, a LIBERAL congress, butchered RnD on the Osprey and then panicked when a couple of underfunded birds crashed. Did anyone actually ever bother to read up on their shortcomings in design and maintenance and where they stemmed from? Do budget constraints, open testimony in front of congress about their potential hemmed in by a lack of funding and a push by LIBERAL democrats for results, a lack of field maintenance training, anything every get through your fucking heads... or was it The Register and CNN that got to you instead. Try reading about something and understanding all aspects of an issue and problem BEFORE you declare it to be.
As to 'missle defense', more commonly called SDI or 'Star Wars'... can someone really point out to me it's failing. It advanced laser research in this country by 30 years... It advanced silicon design and theory for chips over 20 years... It actually produced three cheap and effective systems that would work (Brillian Pebbles anyone???). Again, the LIBERAL rhetoric at work. Destabilizing my ass... besides the fact that it was one of the key reasons Russia bankrupted itself trying to 'win' the coldwar in the 80's, resulting in 100's of millions of free people and the end of the most scary and dangerous periods in human history, the advancement of space and land based military and civillian technologies, and the real results (sure, plenty of dumb ideas and failures, but you have that in any race. Read up on the numerous failures and sidetracks taken in the Manhattan Project for instance, or during the space race!) that produced a few solid workable systems that even today would work and in one case sit on the shelves rotting instead of defending our nation. The only destabilization was that of the Eastern Bloc and the result was the fall of communisim, of which SDI played a key role. God, what disinformation and re-writting of history.
As to open source... ponder this. How is a system so secure if every bit of it is spread out in documents and on the internet for anyone else to read, understand, and break? Open source is only secure right now simply because it requires an expert to run (which usually translates to extreme dilligence in patching and securing all the time) and because it is deployed world wide in such small numbers in comparision to mainstream applications that no one either bothers with it or really cares. Yes, Linux on a server is a better choice in alot of cases on a purely technical level, but not in the real world deployment of millions of systems when there are so few who understand it intimately enough to run and maintain it...
If it was going to cost me three hundred billion dollars to lock my windows, I would do just that. Especially if I realized that any idiot would be able to trivially defeat the locked-windows 'system' directly as well (i.e. throw a rock, or a few dozen decoy missiles).
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Not at all. I would actually support missile defense if it was a global effort to make sure that no one can use ICBMs.
Oh, and if it actually worked, instead of being just another corporate welfare check for the military industry.
Reminder: find a new sig
After looking around the ADTI web site, it's obvious that the organization is just a thinly veiled Republican back-scratcher. I doubt anyone really cares what ADTI thinks.
The missle shield was certanly destablizing, it never helped us in any treaty with another super power, not even as a negotiating gambit. [etc.]
Seems to me it worked perfectly.
The Soviet Union collapsed, ending half a century of Cold War. The surviving USSR government officials said the major factor was SDI. Not a single nuclear bomb exploded on or above the soil of the US, its possessions, or its allies (including all the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty). And it was so powerful we didn't even have to actually DEPLOY it!
Lets see your smart bomb or a START-XVI treaty beat THAT!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is typical, they don't even have any programmers participating in their study who don't work for microslop I bet. The thing with open source is that the holes get plugged, while with microslop, they just hope no one discovers them, and act reactivly to try to patch what they can, but some holes just never get patched. Look at how easy it is to spread viruses programming with simple visual basic scripts, I mean at one time a "terrorist" could even create a webpage that would reformat your hd for you. I think this is also an attempt to reclassify simple hackers as "terrorists".
Check my site out for ogg vorbis music produced with linux.
Mutually Assured Destruction was "stable" only as far as retaliatory destruction was really assured. A limited missile defense system makes it impossible for your opponent to be sure that a first strike of theirs will destroy all of your missiles, and so makes MAD more stable, not less.
As far as wheether SDI was destabilizing, reagan administration membrs were pretty clear that was the point of the things, as was teh sr-71 soviet overflights, etc, so I don't see what your problem is. Also, if you think that SDI was or is workable, you don't understand what icbm missiles are. Or mirv warheads. If one warhead in a hundred get through from the kind of attack SDI and ABM are designed for, we're toast.
What's interesting to me is that you assume I'm a leftist when it comes to military matters, as I'm clearly not.
chrisd
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
The three biggest lies redux,
smoking is good for you, windoze is secure, the check is in the mail
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is more than just script kiddies. Open source is good against script kiddies. That may simply be its low radar profile more than anything, but it could be the open source community finding bugs as well.
But when people are interested in more than general vandalism, it becomes a different story. If I need to hack something that is open source, I check out the source, and look for buffer overruns and what not. It's hard for the very popular stuff, but for most programs, a bug is easy to find. And even for the more popular stuff, there are always holes to be found if you expend enough effort looking.
For very popular closed source programs, the first thing to try is the online community. Someone somewhere has something. For companies like Microsoft with poor security reputations, and lots of people trying to hack them, there is actually a lot.
But if you have to figure out a bug yourself, it's time for buffer overflow testing, reverse engineering with a hex editor, and what not.
So which is harder?
I'd say hacking into popular open source programs is the hardest. However, hacking into unpopular open source programs is the easiest. There is a range of security considerations, and it is always possible for evil people to find your vulnerabilities if they have enough resources.
It just needed some more time. It was a good idea and already alot of money was put into it. The deceased died in vain because they cancelled it.
"A non-partisan, non-profit educational research foundation conducting, publishing and publicizing research on the promotion and perfection of economic liberty, political freedom, opportunity and democracy in the United States and around the world"
I'm sorry, but am I the only one who thinks taking money from MS goes against the entire "non-profit" aspect of it all? Additionally, how can a company that claims to promote economic liberty, political freedom and opportunity and democracy be against the use of Open Source and believe that "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one driver". This simply doesn't add up.
Well, I decided that these people are either very stupid or very hypocritical, so I decided to take a look see if these guys used Frontpage. Luckily they didn't, but they're only one step away...behold line 14:
<!-- ImageReady Slices (newfront1.psd) -->
Everyone knows how amateur a company looks like when they don't even take the time to delete comment lines automatically generated by ImageReady. How embarrassing.
Then looking through their source code, guess who left Options Indexes in httpd.conf?
http://www.adti.net/shopping_cart/
From there you can discover much, additionally you can view WS_FTP.LOG
All this lead me to believe that this Think Tank doesn't really lend itself very much to thinking at all. I will completely disregard any comments or findings by this company simply because they
do not care about their web presence
can't code a lickin
leave huge potential exploits wide open and
are either extremely stupid or hypocritical
I hope you feel the same
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
The GPL only requires that the seller make the source code available to the people who actually hold copies of their software. Therefore, if the only people who hold copies of the GPLed software are military service branches, it is unlikely that a civilian would have access to the source code for sensitive software (such as the drivers or whatever for a Patriot missle or a spy plane).
As for more mundane software like OSes for PCs and servers, I think it's established that Free Software is the way to go. I remember the story that appeared on slashdot a few weeks ago about MS saying their software was so buggy that releasing the source code would threaten national security. It seems that software that has already been tested lacking of obfuscation of code would be preferable to the one whose security relies on that obfuscation.
It is a disaster waiting to happen.
Dipshit! Read some history. Learn about aircraft.
i seem to recall the 9/11 dudes communicating with hotmail accounts on windows machines.
wasn't this a tragedy that closed source could have prevented?
Similarly, closed source is often an attraction to developers (and higher quality developers) to work harder to produce better products, but just because source is closed doesn't necessarily make it better. There are examples of crap software on both sides of the fence. Everybody likes to get something for free, though, and often that's all it takes to "sell" a crap piece of open software, even if it's at the expense of the closed source innovator.
One thing's for sure: open source feeds off the innovation expressed in closed source projects. Any dramatic (as in revolutionary) world-wide transition from closed source to open source has a good chance of producing tremendous unemployment in the software development arena.
Open source advocates are promoting their own unemployment, if they actually intend to earn a decent living off software development. (As long as all of their intellectual property is not open, companies like Apple will continue profit, though, because Apple makes most of its money off selling proprietary hardware).
The loss of employment may happen indirectly: one developer may effectively destroy another's job by undermining the other's livelihood, but what goes around eventually comes around.
Once again, who has proof they took money from MS? Anyone? Please provide a link to said proof. For all you that take slashdot to be the complete truth... How pathetic. For those that whine about the think tank being partisan.. How pathetic. If the tank came out with a perfectly true report that you disagreed with.. you'd label it partisan. Save your breath you liberal scum.
who the hell cares?
This is one key point I haven't seen brought up yet. In open-source projects, the weaknesses and strengths are well-known and allows for well educated implementation decisions - less risk. With closed-source operations, the weaknesses of the software are known by less people which makes those weaknesses a bit stronger because of the "security by obscurity", but there lies the greatest weakness - the additional security is dependent on people. The people that implement it, develop it, maintain it. The people that are 1) not employed by government (likely a greater security risk) 2) building the software for money (possibly more willing to accept a bribe). Depending on the knowledge known by the person bribed, the exploit could extremely deadly and unpredictable the consequences - more risk.
Well let's see. Bill Gates started Microsoft with Paul Allen who owns the Portland Trail Blazers. Rasheed Wallace is a power forward for the Trail Blazers. Wallace played basketball at the University of North Carolina where Michael Jordan won a national championship his junior year before taking on the NBA himself. Jordan starred in Space Jam with Bill Murray who had an uncredited cameo in "She's Having a Baby" starring...Kevin Bacon.
>We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...
:)
Honest, on-topic question. I've submitted some stories that I thought were good. They weren't accepted. I didn't submit this, but I think it's good, too. So I dont waste your time and mine submitting stories you dont want, why/how does this story not fit the profile? Thanks
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics... and Studies.
'Nuff said.
This just makes me sick. I've read Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America several times, it's one of my favorite books. He considered unchecked capitalism a serious threat to participatory democracy. How vile for an organization to sully his name with drivel like this report.
Funny how Microsoft, with questionable business ethics and extremely unstable and expensive closed-source software with security holes big enough to drive a truck through, are giving these 'think tanks' money to say that Open Source Software is not only insecure, but 'Supports Terrorism(TM)'.
It seems to me that the words "Terrorism", and "Terrorist" have become such buzzwords that people will now be wracked with fear the millisecond someone makes the (however questionable) connection between a certain person/organization, object/product/location/etc. and 'Terrorism(TM)'.
The next thing you know pig lobbyists like M$ will be greasing up the lawmakers of the world to implement a worldwide ban on Open Source Software, and delclaring the act of possessing/creating/distributing/using OSS an 'Act Of Terrorism(TM)', which will result in much heavy-handed penalties: such as execution or lifetime imprisonment, because your an 'Enemy of the Free World'.
Just my $0.02
to prove a point, if the adti.net is running IIS someone should crack it ... =)
_f
The operating system of choice for terrorists worldwide appears to be Microsoft Windows .
All the captured computers from the taliban and terrorist cells are using Microsoft Windows
So using the same "logic" as the e Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Microsoft Windows is directly responsible for the events of 9/11.
Sendmail is dying!
Recent studies show that the percentage servers running sendmail has decreased by 96% of 0.000001% according to netcraft guru John JonMarkesson. "It is simply too unbelieveable to conceive, but sendmail is dying!", said uber-hacker Linus Torvalds, creator of the open source operating system Loonix.
Richard Stallman founder of the FSF commented by saying, "Damn it, it should be GNU/sendmail is GNU/dying!!!!"
Cmdr. Taco and Hemos were unavailable for comment as VA/Linux is dying.
Source: The Loonix Daily Times
"...[M$'s] relentless dominance has simplified our lives and has saved us from a convoluted market for computer software.
...
Standardization has also improved the products that are available to us. Software makers can turn out 10 products that run on the Windows platform, rather than one product that runs on 10 platform. Manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one; driver per model, so hardware is cheaper, more diverse, and more reliable.
...
Microsoft and its competitors have had to divert managerial talent to warding off legal rather than competitive challenges. As a result, the Microsoft litigation has weakened the entire software industry."
What is this?!?
Since when has "relentless dominance" been a good thing?
Does any of this make sense?
Heaven forbid M$ have main-stream competition and be forced to make Windows a cheaper and/or better product.
I'm sure computer hardware would be just as cheap and reliable without companies competing to be the best because their profits depend on it.
And so far, the only impact I know M$ has had on the open-source community, is giving people more and more reasons to prefer open-source over Windows.
I meant the first sentence to read: Well, I'd agree if slashdot was analogous to the front section of the paper instead of the opinion section.
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Because they have money. We (using the term very loosely, since this whole Microsoft vs. Open Source thing is pretty much Just Another Holy War by now, and I'm agnostic) do not. As many corporations are finding, it's pretty hard to raise money by giving away a product.
Looks more like the Tomás de Torquemada Institution, if you ask me.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
this retort.
http://www.farmerbob.org
Hey Homer, the NSA doesn't release its own crypto because it believes in security through obscurity.
It doesn't release them because the other guys could use the same crypto. And this violates the NSA charter because either 1) they know how to crack the code, but others could figure that out also and thus they've failed to protect US interests, or 2) they don't know how to crack the code, so they've aided others to work against US interests.
Either way, they'll going to catch a lot of heat if they provide information, much less if they remain silent (modulo their responsibilities). That's a no-brainer.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I have been going to zd's website for several years and I have also been a less frequent visitor to c-net but I have never realized c-net owns the domain name com.com. I just found it odd when I clicked on the link at the top of the article it was taking me to:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-929669.html
How in the hell have I missed this over my last 6-7 years online and moreso should I feel like a total idiot for just now realizing it or should I feel like a total idiot for actually posting that I feel like an idiot on slashdot?
mmmmm, I will sit and ponder the meanimg of it all.
Qualifications:
- Masters Degree from prestigious school
- Excellent communications skills
- Incredible powers of persuasion
- Proven business acumen, recognized by thousands
-- signed
Ex Dot Com Founder
> Well, they're right-on about the drivers. It's great knowing that 99% of the time I can plug in my hardware and it will work with no problem on Win2K. I wish I could say the same for Linux, Solaris, etc
Actually it is quite wrong. Different drivers have been needed for: Windows 3.x, Windows95/98/ME, Windows NT/2000, Windows XP, Windows CE; and probably there will be yet another driver setup for whatever follows on, eg 'NewPC/XPC'.
I know that MS introduced some type of unified driver interface, was it for ME and 2000?, but the binaries needed recompiling for each of these at the very least.
There may even be different drivers required for NT embedded and XP embedded.
Actions speak louder than words.
Create a worm or virus which tells people that they're helpless because of M$.
Have one of those popping up lound and clear on twenty million screens and the word on closed source wil become loud and heard.
Closed source is pointless.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
consumers:
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Hey now, no need to insult whores! At least they make an honest living.
I caught this one on LWN last week and gave him my 2 cents. I quiped that they must be taking Microsoft's money to write such drivel, and he felt the need to mention 'people's hate for Microsoft is irrelevant'. I only really threw the Microsoft thing at him, as it's funny this comes out JUST after Microsoft tried similar BS in court.
:P
His reasoning seems to be follow a 'need to keep it secret' train of though which is absurd on a number of levels. (including the ability to have open code and secret, internal-only stuff co-existing, private branches, yada yada)
The funniest thing he said, I'll quote verbatim for you:
"True patriots will come to grips with the reality that really bad people want more information about our nation's computer systems; and giving any bad people indiscreetly any information about our systems is reckless."
I love the 'yer-not-a-patriot-if-you-dont-agree' brainwash attempt, coupled with the kiddie talk about the 'really bad people'.
I'm immune to flag-waving patriotism pressures though, since I'm not American.
I specifically mentioned NSA's secure Linux as sort of a proof that, well... this guys ARE in the security business after all, they've likely weighed out the risks involved, and saw little.
In fact if you have a look at their FAQ, they specifically say they don't quite have things with Linux to the point they could use it for some of the most demandingly secure needs. But they seem optimistic that at some point they might.
Anything NSA (or whoever) does to harden software, and give back to the community, helps harden everyone elses systems too. The sharing is not a bad thing for anyone involved really.
This whole thing is just a new twist on Microsoft's 'OMG! The GPL ate my IP'.
'OMG the terrorists saw our SCSI driver!'
Have you painted a shed today?
It was sucessful because they didn't nuke us???
Get real Nuclear weapons are like smallpox...America is the only country to have ever used them against someone else and now we live in media induced fear someone will do it to us. mass projection.
While I still believe that OSS shows a distinct lack of innovation (go ahead, mod me down you zealot), there are enough benevolent citizens in the open source community that if a truly life-threatening risk was identified it would be fixed within hours.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
What is it with MS' FUD engines all running unices and open source software?
This report is partially correct in that some terrorist are switching to Linux. My old college room mate Akmed Mukamuk is the IT Director for the Jihad United Front. He was telling me about 45% of their cells got whacked with Klez because they were all using Outlook.
He said it was a bitch to clean them all because the cells are spread out all over the world, so they have decided to switch all of their end users to Linux when they visit Iraq for Terror World Interop 2002 this fall. They started moving their servers to Linux last summer after Code Red.
I wonder if he took into account the difference between remotely exploitable and locally explotable vulnerability?
I also wonder if he took into consideration the Window of Exposure between the discovery of the vulnerability and the release of the patch?
See Closing the Window of Exposure by Bruce Schneier , the security section of David Wheeler's "Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers! and also again visit the disproportionately high number of open vulnerabilities in its Internet Explorer.
It sounds to me like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is using the Chewbacca Defense!
You're using her as bait, Master!
I have NO IDEA where to start parsing your sig, but I know thats the last time I run a strange piece of bash again. My uptime, shattered!
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Both should pretty much have the exact same functionality, ie. Webserver delivering webpages, and running a little database with some cryptic message in there. Then let them open to the world, and time the seconds before each one is cracked. Then Release that to the press. Here is some hard evidence about which one is safer.
Obviously there would have to be some things that would need to be done; 1, Experts in the various OS's to be used to set the system up... no amatuers, and 2, The machines should not have any identifiers to say which is which. That way it is pure blind hacking.
What do you think about that?
It just depends on who is opening the source.
May the source be with you.
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
I'm no MCSD, MCSE, or MCDBA (yet!), but I'm very involved in the MS developer community - in particular the .NET community. I go to the Redmond campus at least once a month and know quite a few people that work there. What's interesting is most "MS Tech Geeks" aren't generally anti-OSS and many actually have experience with Linux and other OS's. Sure, there's also a large group that's feeds off of MS dogma but the rest aren't really all that bad. There really are a lot of smart people that either work for MS or primarily work with MS technology that get quite frustrated atMS's marketing FUD. We're all educated (in theory) enough to make our own decisions based on the MERIT OF THE TECHNOLOGY. We don't need restrictive licenses, stupid marketing FUD, or silly gimicks like 100 page color brochures sent to our houses every day. Marketing and PR types can make the image of a company, however, they generally break the image of a company in the eyes of techies which employ simple FUD avoidance algorithms.
I have certain critiques about OSS, moreso GPL's based licenses and less so BSD based licenses, but I'm not about to agree to this "OSS will increase terrorism" BS. Come on MS (et all), STOP TREATING US LIKE IDIOTS!
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
You can compare the software to a car. With closed source, you have a car with the bonnet welded shut. It's hard to steal the car, because it's hard to get under the bonnet to hotwire it. Only the manufacturer can get in.
However, it's probably a better idea not to weld the bonnet shut. If you can get the bonnet open then you can fit a car alarm and immobiliser.
Slashdot is like a giant op-ed piece ...
-Sean
Open Source, as closed source, is a recursive process:
Source/Program gets released->Someone finds something exploitable->Source programmer finds out, either from a direct attack or from CERT or something->Programmer fixes bug->jmp start
One of the Microsoft geezers himself said that Windows could not be Open Sourced because it has too many security holes to be patched, it is here where Open Source could be deemed as "unsecure", but we can all see that this is the fault of the company not the source code licence.
I'll note though, that Open Source can be reviewed by professional security analysts before it is implemented in government computers etc, closed-source cannot, they must rely on the companies word that a product is secure
So if there are enough submissions, we can get whatever story we want on Slashdot? Time to get all my zombie slaves-I mean, friends to submit "Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans set to task of making Star Wars III not suck"
"Experts in the various OS's to be used to set the system up... no amatuers"
;)
That, my friend, is the problem. They either use, say, RH out of the box with no modifications/adjustments while a cadre of hardened NT admins set up the MS box.. Or, they use command line commandos to fathom the brutality of Linux, while tossing a CD into the MS box and saying, "Okay, all set up!"
Even if professionals are used, how does one compare them? I think the only truly valid test would be, which is more secure out of the box?
Linux, I have doubts about when stacked against MS systems.
Of course, there's always Open BSD
Don't need one OS just to get drivers working everywhere.
Check out Project UDI, device drivers source compatible everywhere, binary compatible on platforms with the same ABI. This is what OpenUNIX 8 uses under the hood. Microsoft will never join, because everyone targets them anyway, and its to their advantage for stuff not to work on other systems.
GIVE?? It to them?
If other countries want it, they should 1) do it themselves or 2) buy it from us!
I have to correct you here. As anyone with a 2 year old and a video machine would know, Tinky Winky has a bag, not a hat. Dipsy is the one with the hat.
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
I'll probably be modded down by the editors for saying this but that is exactly what this article is.
It doesn't argue against the actual conclusion or the logic used (granted that's kinda hard to do for a study that hasn't been released yet). Instead, there are the baseless allegations about the motivations (no evidence that they actually took money from Microsoft) and completely irrelevant links to other studies which have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Mmmm.. Donuts
It was at the Auscert conference on the Gold Coast in Queensland.
u sings
This is the only online reference I have to his talk.
I do have paper notes. Somewhere...
http://conference.auscert.org.au/abstracts.html#m
It's pretty clear it was quite a simplistic study with a specifically chosen sample timeframe etc. I thought his points were quite well reasoned though.
Who violated the treaty?
These guy's are scary!
buy Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05, @07:16AM (#3643818)
the prestigious renounced think tanks of justin de Linuxville.com is re-re-leasing a report which states that closed source ?software?, particularly that of the ill eagle KingDumb of fud, is so defective, IT is InFactDead, not to mention IT is a BiG PayPer LieSense(tm) reap off.
no animals were harmed in the formulahlah of diss report.
Upon reading this article and doing some research on my own, I emailed a polite letter to the contacts at AdTI. The response I got back shows that they are pretty clueless about the whole thing and won't be able to back up their story with sound technical details. Try it, it's fun.
A problem is that nowadays pretty much all computer owners are admins. With always on connections like DSL, everybody's at risk.
And since good security is pretty hard to understand and implement properly because it involves so many issues, most people really don't even have time for it. I personally have shut down all the services in my system, and I believe that's what 90% of all home users should do. I wonder why no distro I've seen offers to do this when installing. It would help eliminate a lot of problems.
If I had to guess without consulting documentation, I'd say:
:(){ #define function ':' which takes no arguments
:|:& # call ':' and pipe its output into
.sigs on slashdot :) that has &'s in it. That function would be easier to stop (using Ctrl-Z or Ctrl-C) if it didn't use & (which disconnects the keyboard from the program's stdin/stdout).
# another running copy of itself, running
# this in the background
}; #end of function
: #call our function
More readably: function destroy () { destroy | destroy & }; destroy
Note that each call to : will recursively expand into no fewer than two calls, both which again invoke two new copies, so it expands very quickly. Since you probably have no shell restrictions by default, it did the same thing a fork bomb would: fill your process table instantly and consume all your memory and processor time.
If you use bash (or probably any bash-like shell), you may have ulimit available. With ulimit's -u switch, you can set how many processes you may start and probably avoid the situation you described. I believe there are similar ways to achieve this in the kernel (probably by recompiling), but I'm not familiar enough to tell you how.
As a general rule, don't run suspicious code (e.g., code found in
I hope this post has been informative enough to outweigh its off-topic nature.
Strange, some other government seems not to have read the study
http://www.n-tv.de/3017210.html
(foreign tongue alert)
Seems no matter haw you act in public, you'd have to reason with 9/11 somehow.
Oh..ofcourse..I mean M$ windows is soo secure since tehy arn't open source...I mean *nix systems are no where near as secure...
both sides have their share of problems--but neither side has the edge when it comes to fixing security holes. You're just as likely to encounter a security problem with open-source code as you are with Microsoft Windows, and the fix is just as likely to appear quickly and be done properly....however I'd rather have an open source system..as you can change it as you will...it IS in no doubt a hell of a lot more secure than M$ products.
I believe a fair paraphrase of the position of dlur, chrisd, and many others here is, "If Microsoft paid for it, it must be a lie. Therefore, I don't need to read the actual report." And how do we know that Microsoft paid for the report? Apparently, because the report will favor closed-source software (If anyone has provided other evidence, I missed it). I guess this is what Slashdotters consider a spirit of free inquiry.
Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare?
Quote:
A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
"We support a diverse array of public policy organizations with which we share a common interest or public policy agenda such as the de Tocqueville Institution," the spokesman wrote in an e-mail.
The surgeon general has determined that Windows may be hazardous to your wallet.
One wonders if maybe Micro$oft has thought of (surely) or engaged in (anyone at M$ want to tell us) attempts to post code somewhat anonymously with the intent to make it less secure.
They do a pretty good job of doing it *un*intentionally with their own software, so one wonders how good (bad) a job they could do if they *REALLY* wanted to make something insecure...
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
So, apparently whenever someone tries to develop something new, it is supposed to immediately work with no flaws? I guess there are no development and testing periods in your world, are there?
Because they have the source for their Security Enhanced Linux available for download. We'd better tell them that security through obscurity is much more efficient, eh? ;-)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It was sucessful because they didn't nuke us???
...
...
... and now we live in media induced fear someone will [nuke or germ] us ...
Precicely.
After the climax of WW II, when the world found out a nuke was more than "just a bigger bomb", the game changed.
Up until then it had been progressively bigger wars. Now it was "Let's see if we can avoid a war without surrendering."
So the West came up with the doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD - i.e. You'd be mad to set off the first nuke. And US presidents had to put on a show of being just crazy enough to use them, or it wouldn't work.) But that's just a stalemate, no "progress" pushing your agenda.
So the East came up with the "Cold War" - with anti-West propaganda and brushfire wars in "domino" countries. (Salami slicing: Pick off the little guys one by one, then the middle-size guys, until the big guy is alone against the world. Cook the Frog: Never create a "Shelling Point" were the chip is knocked off the big guy's shoulder.)
So the West came up with the arms race: "We've got more money so we can outbuid you. You make a missile, we make an anti-missile-missile." (And Rocky and Bullwinkle satarize it with the anti-anti-[pause]-missile-missile-missile.)
And this went on for HALF A CENTURY. Before that it was a major war every generation, with all the "best" weapons in the arsenal in use. Now it was a declining series of "limited wars", with the biggest bombs very carefully NOT used.
Nukes really had made "total war" obsolete. Three war cycles came and went with no World War Three. And it all worked because expensive weapons were built with the intent that they NOT be used, because they'd be too devastating if they were.
There were abortive attempts to limit the proliferation and avoid "destabilizing" situations, in the form of an anti-missile ban and arms reduction treaties. But "stable" meant the Cold War continued to bleed both sides, and one side disarming too fast might mean the War to End All Humanity. Finally Regan abandoned such attempts and went flat-out for better armor, when the USSR couldn't afford to stay even. And the Soviet Union folded.
There was a LOT more to it than that. Like computers and networks for instance. (Restrict communication Soviet style and you slow progress. Have progress in computers and networking and you get communication you can't ban. Try to selectively free your people's communication and you discover that you can't suppress just some. Infrmation wants to be free because PEOPLE want to be free.)
But at the core, preventing nuclear war was done with weapons that worked by NOT being used; weapons that thus created their effects by MAYBE being able to work, so you couldn't risk them actually being used against you.
So, yes, SDI was successfull because they didn't nuke us. The US won the arms race but we ALL won the war.
Get real
Why get real when I can win with virtual weapons? B-)
Nuclear weapons are like smallpox...America is the only country to have ever used them against someone else
I see the public schools have neglected your education when it comes to germ warfare. For starters look at the history of the European dark ages - with diseased animal carcases being catapulted over fortress walls or dropped in wells and rivers during sieges.
Lived that way for over 50 years already - but with the spectre of a massive, simultaneous attack on everything that might be a target (which means essentially everything). One or two suitcase nukes or tactical-shells taking out one city or one dam? ONE plague released in a few spots, using most like non-engineered organisims, rather than a dozen lab-frankenbugs sprayed over a continent simultaneously? Chicken feed. The damage and death is vanishingly small compared to hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes, traffic accidents, clogged-arteries, and cancer.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution."
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
How come it is so popular as a firewall OS? In fact, every single purpose built firewall machine I've seen is running Linux?
Besides the question what sort of software is more secure, what about the terrorists? It has often been stated that they might try to attack the Internet or computers in general or certain computers in particular. But are the Internet and computers really an attractive target for terrorists? What are terrorist trying to achieve, actually, how do they think about it, why do they still prefer suicide bombing over high-tech attacks? I don't have answers, but those constructing a connection between terrorism and the open/closed source issue do not have them either. They don't even ask the right question.
The truth might turn out to be that terrorist just aren't interested in attacks nobody except a few geeks would notice or understand.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
These are the same people who say smoking is good for you.
Er, no. That is not what your quote says.
Criticizing risk assessment methods is not the same as saying "smoking is good for you".
Standard disclaimers: I don't smoke, and I prefer open source software, when I can use it. But I detest mindless arguments.
A study on Open-source Software funded by Microsoft- that's 1 degree of separation. It must be .Net!
Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
They've thought about this a lot more than you have. Imagine what the conversation went like when someone realized that they were going to post a "study" certain to incite [h/cr]ackers. Wouldn't *you* fear having your server cracked?
Well...this way, if their server is cracked, they can use it as further evidence that their report is correct. Nevermind that they misconfigured the thing; it's the fault of Open Source.
Notice that http://www.adti.net/searchpage.htm accesses a free linux based search engine.
What hypocrites.
From netcraft.com
The site www.picosearch.com is running Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.2 mod_perl/1.24_01 on Linux.
"A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution."
:)
Yay. Thank you very much, I appreciate that. Looks like Wired did our homework for us.
As long as I'm posting, I'd like to point out how funny it is that somebody moderated my originial post as "Flamebait." There needs to be some sort of an IQ test before people are allowed to moderate.: )
-Waldo Jaquith
Favorite quote from the antitrust document:
"[Microsoft's] relentless dominance has simplified our lives."
Sure, right. And slavery simplified the lives of black people. I also liked:
"Many argue that its programmers have turned out shoddy programs, but the firm's objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per se."
Well, they got that right!
time to unleash beowolf!
(I just had to)
Let's just say that spending billions and billions on a faulty system designed to ward against manufactured (and highly improbable) threats while upsetting the nuclear balance just so that some money can be injected into the pentagon system seems like a rather stupid thing to do.
The truth is, before 9/11 the missile defense project was going nowhere. Since then, as America has abandoned rational thinking in matters of defense, it has come back with a vengeance, even though it wouldn't have prevented that awful tragedy, nor will it protect against similar attacks (more probable than missile attacks by a couple order of magnitudes) in the future.
It's quite funny to read about those things in the american media: the U.S. won't spend billions on changing energy consumption habits in order to face a threat (global warming) that - even though it's not 100% proven - has been recognized by its own government as real. But it's more than ready to spend those billions on a missile defense system that has yet to prove to be effective against a threat that most military analysts regard as highly improbable at best!
Actually, Bush and co. don't care if the missile defense system is effective or not, because it is not designed to be used - they know no country in its right mind (even schizoidal North Korea) would attack the U.S. with nuclear missile, there's just too much to lose. And yet lots of intelligent, educated people just gobble it up, it seems...ah, such is the power of propaganda.
Reminder: find a new sig
Expect the price to go down about $0.81 per share in the next 3 weeks, as LNUX will be delisted.
Just listening to the BBC TV program 'Click Online'. Someone asked them why Linux seems to be virus proof whereas Windows is constantly attacked.
The presenter responsed that Linux wasn't totally virus proof but that the Windows monoculture made it extremely vulnerable to viruses. He then repeated the statistics for Code Red etc.
He also trotted out that hacker orthodoxy that Open Source is more secure because people could inspect the source for:
1. security vulnerabilities
2. trojans
With Windows and other closed source code you didn't know what had been hidden away in their codebase.
So there you have it from the BBC, The Windows Monoculture aids cyber terrorists.
David
ps didn't those 9/11 guys train on Microsoft Flight Simulator...
This group of people are really terrorist hackers in disguise.
If all the computer systems in the world runs on Windows variants, all will be obviously have the same security holes and could be broken by the same exploits. This implies that if they found a new flaw, they could possibly hack into all the computer systems in the world bringing down the world. This has been shown time and again by windows-friendly viruses which is able to decimate millions of computer systems in a single day through micrsoft's flaws. These people must be terrorists in disguise to have such evil intents! Do not trust them! They don't sound like the usual microsoft moneytaker. They sounds like they want to control your computer system!
Many of the headlines are quite revealing about their intentions. Many are about the importance of MCSE:
- Inc. 500 Shops Value Certification Most (MCSE vs college degrees)
- Familiarity Breeds Respect
- Technology Trends: Program Provides Information For New Age
- The Impact of Technology Training Programs Case Study: MCSE Training
And then there are numerous anti-trust criticism articles:"Recruiters tend to hire MCSEs just as often, if not more so, than those with a four-year college degree."
"Eighty-seven percent of human resource managers surveyed believed that MCSE's are equally or more successful than college students."
Etc. Also lots of articles about the precious intellectual property rights, although not specifically in relation to Microsloth.
You still haven't quite explained how that fits into a discussion about a Microsoft Funded think-tank...as if the funding and the tank's conclusion weren't evidence enough of a load of B.S.
One warhead in a hundred? Do you have any idea how many nukes have been detonated on U.S. soil from testing alone? Yet...we're all still here. Sure...alot of people are screwed, but if even a few of those hundreds get shot down, millions might survive who otherwise wouldn't have. Missile defense tech is in it's infancy...if we gave up on all tech that early, we'd lucky if we were using muskets by now...to say nothing of computers. Those vacuum tube monstrosities must have seemed insane...at one time. What I find interesting is that people (editors in particular) on slashdot who are so pro-tech, as so selective as to which ones they are for. Nanotech is good, yet missile defense is bad...Nanotech scares me ALOT more, as the offensive/defensive and privacy erroding potential is rather extreme. Can't wait for that next advance though. I wonder how they decide which ones are "cool" sometimes.
And for the record, the Osprey's record actually isn't that bad. Your buying into the mainstream media...when it's suiting you. (It's a juicy story that they love to hype...well beyond the reality of the situation.) It's another situation like that shark attacks they were hyping last year...when actually, it was just a pretty typical year for that, by the numbers. Not really any more than usual. The Osprey doesn't crash that much, compared to alot of other craft...and especially not compared to other relatively young ones. To top it off, a good number of the problems in the crashs have been user errors. Fatally flawed? I didn't know you were an mechanical or aerospace engineer...there are some here with posts above this one though. Funny...alot of them don't agree with you.
It's fine that you consider yourself a non-leftist in military matters...yet you and the other editors here are blatantly leftists as a general rule. It's not hard to see how someone could make the assumption that this is how you were being...even if it is incorrect. Thank you for having the balls to reply to something in your own article however...it's something most of the other editors never do. You've got my respect back for that, for whatever it's worth.
I am sorry I am posting anonymously...I lost my ability to moderate the last time I disagreed with an editor.
Colleges and universities pride themselves on teaching people to think
MCSE's are a Misguied Computer Science Experiment that's all about Reading the Fucking Manual.
Or don't you know about the SA-1 system deployed around Moscow? Or how it was upgraded to SA-6 (I believe)? Or the phased array radar "research" installation that just so happened to be pointing north? The fact of the matter is that the Russian DID have an ABM system in place (and still do). But don't let the facts in the way of some good old fashioned America bashing.
What? There are institutions in Washington D.C. that put forward only a certain viewpoint? Jesus, why are people surprised at this? And before I hear any swill about them all being tools of conservatives and business, there are liberal leaning think tanks as well (the Brookings Institution, the Center for Science and the Public Interest, etc). There are good institutes and bad on both sides. Some are nothing more than paid hacks, but some of the best minds in the world work for these institutes. For every De Toquville institute, you're going to have a Public Citizen type organization to oppose it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Damn those messy facts, they're ruining your addle-brained world view.
Please move back to the real world. Your Fantasyland pass has expired.
Dumb shit waste of protoplasm.
I concur. When groups of people do something for 'free', people immediately get suspicious. After all, we've all learned not to trust corporate generousity -- they ALWAYS want something for it (would you trust anything M$ or GM gave you for 'free'?).
Of course there are many reasons for doing open source projects (altruism, fun, building your skills or portfolio, frustration with the software currently available, a need for customized solutions, etc). Our simplistic media and M$'s massive FUD campaign don't exactly make it easier for people to understand these reasons.
ah, such is the power of propaganda.
Is that the Slashbot mating call I hear? Of course it is! Anything set of ideas that you can't understand is propaganda.
Go back to living in your little perfect dream world while the big boys keep you safe and sound.
In whose estimate? Yours? What are your sources of information that you base that estimate on? Do you know the exact status of North Korea's nuclear program? Iran's? Iraq's? Pakistan's? China's? India's? How well are the ex-Soviet missles in Central Asia guarded?
P.S. - "provide for the common defense" is a Constitutional requirement of the US government. Mandating "don't drive SUVs because the temperature may go up 2 degrees" isn't.
nice to see a user taking down the "editors" a notch or two. they are so full of themselves, it's unbelievable. just because they have a forum to push their views, doesn't make them right.
9/11 will never happen again.
No one - least of all a bunch of Middle Eastern looking men - will be able to hijack a plane in the United States for the next century or so.
I'm surprised the shoe bomber didn't get beaten to death. Hell, IIRC he had to spend quite a while in the hospital after passengers and crew worked him over. If I were on that flight, I would have cut off his dick and balls and stapled them to his forehead - IIRC Islam teaches that you will go to paradise in the same manner your body was in when you died. No dick == no fun with all those virgins.
Either that or I would have wrapped him in a bunch of ham sandwiches and pitched him out an open door...
Yeah, and anyone who doesn't share your opinions just doesn't understand the issues, right? Whatever you do, don't try to actually present counter-arguments! Who knows, your head might explode...
"The American republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
I agree with you in part (even though your lack of manners, however typical of trolls, is a sure sign that I shouldn't bother answering to your post). To be sure, the hijacking a plane - even an old-fashioned one where the primary goal is to hold hostages or simply escape a country - is probably going to become a thing of the past. As you correctly state, passengers are no longer going to risk ending up in a building. I myself have taken the plane a couple of times since 9/11, and was ready to spring into action if something happened - hey, if you're going to die anyway, might as well try to do something about it! However, that does not rule out every possible use of planes (even smaller ones) against facilities. Nor does it rule out truck bombs, dirty bombs (with radioactive material), bioterrorism (especially if it's domestic, as was the case with anthrax...hey, remember anthrax? It used to be news until they found out it probably came from a U.S. Army lab...)
The point is, low-tech terrorist attacks are much more likely to happen again than some third world nation lobbing nuclear missiles at the U.S. Realistically, the chance of such a nuclear attack is very slim to none - and there's no guarantee a missile defence system would work to ward off such an attack anyway. All in all, it seems an awful lot of money to deal with a highly improbable threat...
Reminder: find a new sig
Away and started spewing your political opinions and now you're wrong. The Missle Defensive initiative was intentionally a front which forced the Soviet Union to spend growing amounts of money. It has even been documented that there were fake videos of anti-missle tests against warheads which were broadcast on television to fool the USSR. As a result the wall came down and the USSR is now more. It worked!
1) MS lies to the government about how to fight terror ergo helps terror ergo is terror.
It is more than certain that Open Source is more secure than anything MS ever produced even MS or at least the intelligent (coward) programs that work there should realize it. So if through lies and purchasing lies to sway the government into using MS it is helping the terrorists.
DC is full of decision makers who are not computer experts and are counting on getting good truthful information in order to make the best decisions on how to defeat terrorism, so if Bill is using his money to feed lies to them then he is helping the bad guys, he is a bad guy.
Bill does not care about what is best for the people but what is best for his pocket book. How does he sleep at night? How much money is enough?
Either the people who put this report together for MS (DC) are completely stupid and should not be allowed to speak about such things or are completely aware of the lie they are trying to spread in which case they are evil and or cowards.
I heard that the GIMP can be used to view pictures of child pornography.
hacking is a cleaver way to solve a problem
I like problems that can be solved by hacking with a cleaver.
--
E_NOSIG
- from Gartner
- from DH Brown
(I had tried to post this yesterday, but for some reason none of the CGIs at slashdot were working. Probably some uber-1337 preteen h4x0r thought that DoSing slashdot would help him reach puberty...)"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...
... being the media whores we are, got in as many trolling jabs as we could when we posted it.
Why subscribe indeed?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I think they are exactly correct (sarcasm).
....... lacking oxygen.
Install M/$ everywhere, then watch all the MacroViruses eat it alive.
They are obviously a think tank with their heads in a tank
Why does Slashdot even make the claim any more? I'm notice less and less factually based news here. It's a soapbox and a spotlight where people can stand up and rant under the guise of news. You just can't take this site seriously anymore. I mean really... "I just won't talk about the subject, I'll tell you my politcial and social-economic views all the while I clue you in as to why i became an evil genius in the first place, not to mention why you're a moron for thinking otherwise"
"Latest IE Hole Lets Gopher Root You" -Good article. Concise, to the point and leaving the rants to the users forums. Unless it's an editorial, that's the way it ought to be. Time for a slogan change: Rants for nerds. Opinions that have no bearing on real life whatsoever. And if you come on a good day, maybe some stuff that might matter.
News: 1a : a report of recent events b : previously unknown information 2a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast b : matter that is newsworthy
Editorial : a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article.
Rant 1: to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2: to scold vehemently.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Ballistic missile defense is absolutely needed, we're already far beyond the "was SDI a good idea?" phase.
Remember, the US has already been attacked with ballistic missiles (the Scud attacks during the Gulf war). Our defenses didn't do all that well.
We have the ability to create defenses that will work. The kinetic energy interceptors developed by SDI worked. The software to run them worked.
Lastly, if you think 9-11 was bad, imagine an ICBM attack on Manhatten. Even with conventional high-explosive warheads, it would be devastating. And our nuclear arsenal might not be a deterrant, because we would almost certainly not return a non-WMD attack with a nuclear one (pesky ethics).
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Acutally, no, time and time again bullshit arguments were rolled out against SDI and given tons of press.
"Put mirrors on the outside of the missiles." Despite the fact that SDI was developing kinetic interceptors, not lasers. Not that mirrors will stop a laser, mind you.
"Spin the missiles." And watch them rip themselves to shreds: ICBMs are actually fairly fragile. They're not built to spin like that. It's like spinning a volleyball to protect it from a rifle bullet.
"Launch dummy warheads." When the enemy can already barely afford the missiles to launch real warheads, they're supposed to buy three times as many so they can launch dummies? Right. And inflatable dummies CAN be detected (particle beams make good mass detectors, and inflatable dummies don't fly properly within the atmosphere). Dummies the same weight as the real warheads only reduce the number of warheads you can launch. It's like sending out a bomber full of fake bombs. Nobody would do that.
"Launch more missiles." Firstly, this is an inherent admission that the system works against the number of missiles you have now. Secondly, can you afford to BUY more missiles? And how many years will it delay your plans to attack? Do your missiles cost more than the additional defenses to shoot them down?
"Make new missiles that can avoid the countermeasures." If you have to replace your missile fleet to overcome the defense, the defense obviously worked. You can try again next generation, but missile defense won't be sitting still either.
"We don't need missile defense." We have already been attacked by ballistic missiles (the Scuds in the Gulf war). The need IS proven.
When these arguments were inevitably shown to be flawed, there was never any press, though. Sad, really.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
I guess if you consider the rants news... or reviews on bad, year old movies news, or... Aw hell. Nevermind. It's like talking to a wall.
Flame on!
You need a FREE iPod Nano
You can put Vegemite on bacon.
Bite the hand.
This is from a document on their web site. I guess, it tells you all...
"Microsoft is one such champion. It has proved itself to be an outstanding company. Many argue that its programmers have turned out shoddy programs, but the firm's objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per se. By the profit criterion, Microsoft has been one of the greatest companies in the history of this country."
My question is: how can a software company with developing and marketing "shoddy programs" become "one of the greatest in the history..."?
What's wrong with the statement that "the firm's objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per se"?
And I almost believed that in market economies companies are supposed to get on top if they provide superior product and service...
Poor Alexis de Tocqueville... In his will he should have banned the use of his name by morans.
It's a real shame that this gun-for-hire PR agency adorned itself with the glorious name of Alexis de Tocqueville, who couldn't stand double standards and intellectual dishonesty.
That said, just because despicable people breath does not mean you should not. Whatever these PR whores say, the V-22 is a great concept. Think of it: a plane taking off like a helicopter. It has all the advantages of a regular plane, especially the speed (much faster than a chopper), and it can land vertically.
Of course, it's quite some drain on the ol' budget. I remember a joke in 1989 that "22" in the name refered to the number of billions it had cost so much... I shudder at the thought of the total Osprey program cost nowadays. This thing has been in design and debug forever.
The reassuring thing is that the cause of the most recent crash was pretty mundane: a hydraulic line rubbing against a part each time the Osprey changed phase (pivoting its planes) and finally breaking. It's not like the design is fundamentally wrong.
I know little about the military deployment of the V-22, but I do know one thing: The V-22 is an ideal machine for all the small regional airlines who dream of having a turboprop plane land a handfull of commuters and businessmen in the heart of congested downtowns that are only serviced by ruinous choppers right now.
So, after all these years, we can hope that a civilian version will emerge, all paid by the Pentagone, and that the Japanese and European markets will order hundreds of V-22. Take off in downtown Paris, land in the London City? Heck, I know people who would gladly pay a fortune to avoid the torturous commuting La Defense-Orly-Heathrow-London. Not to mention the stinking tube or the bad-tempered taxi drivers. The market is huge.
Of course, Libertarians object that giving tax money to a private company (Boeing) for building a civilian plane is immoral. But it would not be the first time: The very successful 707 was developed as a military project.
So don't call the V-22 a bad name, chances are you'll ride it someday in 2010 when your customers want you to debug their Apache 6.1 config...
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Can we use slightly less venom in the headlines?
...
All the whoring reports
V-22 Osprey deathplane...
coin-operated policy dispenser...
Come on - If this had been a comment it would have been a troll. I think its worth reporting. Its hard to be an activist w/o good up to date info. But seriously anyone who read that article and that one alone would have been truly disgusted from the start with the community. Keep the news flowing. Just be nicer about it.
What gets me is how much publicity this article has generated - it's all over SlashDot, Linux.com, and Wired just to name a few... The backlash is well deserved (they are full of it), but it almost seems like we're stoking the fire instead of letting this announcement sputter out in anonimity. Did anyone else notice that this preview press release came out the day after Nader came out to the government in favor of Open Source - even though they aren't releasing it for another week? Coincidence? I think we all can agree that this is M$ paid-for-schlock that will be ignored by anyone who knows their a$$ from a hole in the ground (much like their paid-for-'experts' in the anti-trust trial). What remains to be seen is how much credibility government leaders, the mainstream press, and business executives (i.e. those who don't necessarilly know their a$$ from a hole in the ground) will give this report... BTW, they describe OSS as "software that inherently requires that its blueprints, source code and architecture is made widely available to any person interested - without discretion." Does anyone know if there is anything that would keep the government from creating their own Linux distro and not releasing the code or bins to "any person interested - without discresssion"?
The first person to distribute blankets with smallpox to the indians was an officer in the *British* army. Now back then there was no American army, so I suppose you could argue it being sort of the same. But the idea that only the US has ever used smallpox (or blankies) as a weapon is wrong.
1- Our paper does not defend MS
:)
;)
2- Our paper is not about MS
3- Our paper sources very credible members of the OS community
4- There are a number of points in the paper that focus on the GPL. It is
also favorable of the BSD license and Apache.
5- If you must know all the details, it will be on the web this Friday.
kb
-----Original Message-----
From: Lethal Weapon [mailto:lethalwp@linuxbe.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:57 PM
To: kenbrown@adti.net
Subject: open source - microsoft
Have you been paid?
Have you seen all worms passing through outlook or IIS? and you will
claim that MS produces secure software? Yeaaaaaah of couuuuuurse.
even their XBOX is hackable when it'll be on the internet (the private
key used, and same on all xbox, has been discovered)
Besides, you ppl are using: Rapidsite/Apa/1.3.20 (Unix),
FrontPage/4.0.4.3, mod_ssl/2.8.4, and OpenSSL/0.9.6 on an IRIX machine,
according to NetCraft
OpenSSL...
You have lost the faith i had for you ppl
Win NT was considered secure by the army, when not plugged on a network
!
don't forget that
+
Or.. not?
to me, it appears that way.. quite simply because they are basically being paid to say what they are saying.
It seems to me like Microsoft is playing a new card, and that is to pay as little as possible for advertisement,
and as little as possible to blast open source software,if it means hiring the think tanks to proclaim open souce no good.
It doesnt suprise me that people are caught up in the hype that an MSCE is better than a degree.
BS...
Almost every MSCE I have worked with swore that Microsoft was behind most of the internet technology and UNIX played no role in it.
This is your typical MSCE talking. obviously knows little to nothing outside of the Microsoft world.
Microsoft is doing little more than paying for propaganda.
I think we should answer back with some of our own.. sad thing is, ours will be true.....
Fight the evil empire!
With the exception of the (blessedly) former Soviet Union, who is it that HAS these 10+ megaton warheads to throw at us? If it's hard (and it is, no matter how many times someone tells you that "any half-decent machinist could put one together") to build a single working atomic weapon then it's at least an order of magnitude harder to build one that big.
Greater damage in atomic warheads comes from increased efficiency. It must, since simply scaling up the radioactive component will lead to critical mass issues almost immediately. To the best of my knowledge, most US designs use an almost identical amount of 'component', one that's NOT much bigger than the early weapons. The hypothetical "clever machinist" might be able to build a weapon like the "piddling 14 kiloton crap that hit Hiroshima", and any industrialized nation with a nuclear power program certainly could, but you've already decided that size isn't worth worrying about, so we'll skip it for now.
Secondly, who has them in sufficient quantity to get a dozen or more "leakers" past the SDI? Now we're talking quantity, which is also expensive both in materials and expertise. Missiles may be the "cheap parts" but that's only a relative thing. Hell, US missiles still suffer launch failures, and we've spent more years & manpower on this than most nations EVER will.
Let me run down your list of objections: (1)More missiles are a viable counter. Yes, more missiles would make boost-phase target identification of real warheads more difficult, but after that they do nothing. (2)Missiles cheap, warheads expensive. See above. (3)Lasers, particle beams, and focused x-rays were the most talked about SDI weapons. Sure they were, because SDI is a hard sell. Wouldn't YOU rather talk about sexy beam weapons rather than boring old bullets? Isn't an advertising truism to focus on the exciting possiblities when dealing with the press & public? (4)Kinetic weapons are "more plausible but have tons of drawbacks. Again true, to a point, but many of those drawbacks have been addressed in the last 12 years.
Lastly, and this is not intended as a cheap shot, please QC yourself before posting. Nothing says "poorly organized possible-know-nothing-poster" like misspellings, and getting "intelligent" wrong really sucked away your rhetorical power.
The same day I post this they find a buffer overflow in BIND 9...
The USSR went bankrupt. The USA sold bonds and went
into huge debt. Debt that the US can afford because
the country's financial system is stable.
--Please don't confuse political parties with the
validity of closed source or open source. As MS
has proven so very many times, closed source software
can be insecure by DESIGN.
Democrat??? Republican?? who cares.
Give me the source code. Save the rhetoric for
your 'reality party'.
As a side note I wonder how long the US can afford
to have over 5 trillion in debt?? But as my republican
friends tell me. DEBT is good.
But what if we hadn't spent six trillion dollars on nukes (or was it 42 trillion? there was a study once), creating nuke-pollution timebombs at Hanford and elsewhere, experimenting on our own population and spreading cancer from fallout, fostering proliferation and Russia's arsenal.
Maybe we could have fed, educated and housed our own people instead of developing the military-industrial(-entertainment) complex that's made us so vulnerable. And there wouldn't be ex-Russian rogue nukes that could be shipped, totally undetected by the technofix of SDI, and detonated here, as we're being warned by our government. (I believe you may have heard of a recent movie concerning that.)
After all, after you've got enough to destroy the world three times over, isn't the rest a bit of a waste? (As Robert Sheckley said a long time ago, America created the word overkill and then proceeded to demonstrate its practical applications.) What was the collateral damage, for us in this country and for that matter every living thing on the fucking planet?
We've threatened to use nukes at least half a dozen times in the last half century (including the Berlin blockade), we've shown we can't abide by the rules of the rest of civilization, and _you_ feel secure?
Missile defense 'destabilizing'?
I guess that's why the 'peace loving' Soviet Union built a missile defense system (in violation of several treaties) to protect the Moscow area.
Missile defense systems are stabilizing if anything. In theory, they protect your strat. nuclear forces from a 'sneak attack' thus making sure that an enemy would always have to deal with retaliation in kind when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Comments like yours (re: 'destabalizing') are a great credit to Soviet disinformation, propoganda, etc. as used in the Western world.
It's a shame. Your point about a 'bought' think tank trying to kill open-source code is very newsworthy. But your other uneducated and highly political comments are going to make many intelligent readers dismiss your report almost immediately.
p.s. Did you ever think that maybe the report about missile defense being 'unstabilizing' could have possibly been turned out by a 'bought' think tank? Hmmmmmm...
Has its deployment been delayed? Sure. Have there been mistakes both from the engineering side and political side? Of course. Is it the only aircraft to ever deal with these issues? Hell no. If you want to look at a scandal, try the A-12 project. If you want to look at crashes of test flights, consider the B-2.
The Osprey got more press because it is a more "open" project, since it lacks the stealth characteristics of the B-2 which are mostly classified. Furthermore, the major crash that was reported happened to be with an Osprey that was carrying not just the pilot, but 19 Marines.
But look at the chopper the Osprey will replace. Crashes happen all the time, not just to newly designed aircraft. As the CH-46 ages, it will become more and more accident prone.
Also consider that 3 Marine officers were found to have falsified maintenance reports on Ospreys that were under their command. Failure to maintain any plane could cause problems.
So, frankly, for you to call the Osprey a "fatally flawed" plane, is plain FUD. Aircraft crash - that's a fact of life. The goal of engineers is to build them to a standard that minimizes accidents due to mechanical failure. Designs can be improved and corrected if there are problems (although the history of Osprey crashes suggests other factors were responsible).
Before the B-2 was in production use, the naysayers were claiming the same type of thing as you are about the Osprey. Yet now we have a functional aircraft which proved itself to be very capable in many bombing runs. Keeping the old planes is not an option indefinitely: you must stay ahead of the technology curve to maintain an effective military.
SEAL
and russia is in such great shape today...
No one to bribe? These people work for peanuts (or free) in their spare time. I know it's a labor of love, but open source is ripe for bribery.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Well, the way things were going, about 1965 or so the USSR might well have blown us to hell with a half-billion rubles worth of nukes, then duked it out with Red China about 1980 over who would run the remains of the world.
Maybe we could have [done lots of good stuff with the money instead].
The USSR didn't mind polluting a large chunk of their own territory to make plutonium. Chernobyl was just the LAST and worst spill (that we know of). And vaporizing one operating power reactor is a really close approximation to one all-out nuclear war's fallout. But there were plenty of others. (Like the chemical reaction that boiled a major fraction of a Soviet waste dump. The highways through a big chunk of Siberia are still "no stopping zones" due to that one.)
Three Mile Island, on the other hand, was just a little bit of radioactive steam. The atmospheric tests and the military reactor oopsies in the US were larger, but a drop in the bucket compared to either of the USSR incidents above.
Yes the Hanford experiment was cold-blooded genocide. So tell me about it. My wife is one of the "marginal population" they experimented on while she was still in the womb - born in the reservation downwind of the deliberate release. And she has the birth defects, thyroid disease, and occasional propaganda mail about how minor it was (which somehow keeps showing up with updated mailing addresses) to prove it. Seems that experiment was STILL GOING ON, with the victims' health being monitored, at least through the fall of the USSR.
But that sort of expenditure and NAZI-style human experimentation is why it was so important to get the cold war STOPPED. Another win for SDI.
After all, after you've got enough to destroy the world three times over, isn't the rest a bit of a waste?
"Overkill" is misunderstood, and is NOT what you are apparently assuming. Consider this:
One bomb of X kilotons, successfully exploded over a target, kills 1/N of your enemy's population. So you need N such bombs to kill all of 'em, right?
Wrong, for two reasons:
1 That 1/N assumes a "good" target - like the concentrated population and infrastructure of an industrial city. After your first 5 or so bombs blow up all the big industrial centers, your next 100 or so have to go after the little industrial centers. It takes maybe K*N to get 'em all. "Overkill" of K.
2 But these things are going in on bombers (that are being shot at) and missiles (that may fail, and may also be shot at - the USSR did deploy anti-missiles despite the treaties, and were actually allowed one by the treaties). If you don't want to shoot first you fired your missiles (and gave "GO" to your planes and subs) AFTER they shot at 'em - maybe after the bombs landed, maybe yours are in flight while theirs are going BANG. So only one in J gets through. To hit them all you need at least J*K "overkill". Actually you need more - because bomb loss is a statistical process. If you only sent J*K*N bombs some targets would get hit twice and some missed. So you need "overkill" beyond J*K to be sure you level everything you intended to level.
So "overkill" doesn't mean "kill 'em I*J*K times". "overkill" means "bomb each target I*J times, throwing I*J*K times as much stuff as you'd need if they were all just like the easiest one and everything worked perfectly, and PRAY that every target gets hit at least once." If I*J*K happens to be larger than 2 * (World Population / Soviet Population), that does NOT mean you have enough bombs to kill everybody in the world twice.
We've threatened to use nukes at least half a dozen times in the last half century (including the Berlin blockade), we've shown we can't abide by the rules of the rest of civilization, and _you_ feel secure?
YO! DUDE! During the wind-down of WW II into the Cold War we announced that we'd defend West Germany (including West Berlin) by whatever means necessary. We made treaties that REQUIRE us to use nukes to defend certain allies, not just ourselves, from certain kinds of attack. We've announced a policy of responding to government-launced nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks, on our allies and on signatories of the non-proliferation agreement, with nuclear retaliation. (You don't need to develop your own bombs - you can use ours.) And we announced that we would treat siting nuclear missiles in the Americas aimed at the US as an act of war.
Those ARE the "rules of civilization". We wrote 'em. Rent a clue!
("We" includes the rest of the winners of WW II. And the surviving losers as well.)
"As I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death I will fear no evil. For I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the Valley!" If you TRY to kill me, your whole country will glow for centuries, with nothing left alive but cocroaches and algae. And everybody who might try a classic nuclear, chemical, or biological first-strike KNOWS it. THAT's why I sleep peacefully at night.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If you haven't went to their site, check it out. They have an opinion on everything and it is usually one-sided. Here is capitalistic christiananity at its best.
I would be ashamed to spout of, in public, such nonsense. They really don't have a clue as to what a think-tank is for or what it does. They need to learn from RAND (http://www.rand.org/) or leave the thinking to the pros.
I am not going into detail but you can follow their off-white papers over the years and see who their biggest contributors were. I would even venture to guess that these guys are actually political wannabes who were either not accepted for idiocy or were kicked out for idiocy.
Patche says, "You will attract more flies with honey than vinegar... but who wants flies?
Look around. There are lots of companies like Microsoft. In the making, at least. From the perspective of goals and intent, MOST aggressive, profit-minded companies in the free world want to be EXACTLY like Microsoft. Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy would give their left nut to be in Bill Gates' position. It's all very hypocritical. A devastatingly successful, agressive company that annihilates and consumes its competition is the American way. This is why the rest of the world laughs at America and your silly anti-competitive trials. Look! You're eating your young!
Any security system can be broken, whether digital or not. Not to be rude, but look at 9/11 ... that was breach of national security.
So open source wares may have less security built in, so what? So Microsoft is always issuing security updates, so what?
The most popular applications and their securities will always be attacked first because the most damage can be inflicted there.
My point is that no security is perfect. So for MS to attack open source is just plain a waste of time. It's simply a public relations stunt directed toward big business, the gov't and uneducated citizens.
As for people that cry out about MS's security flaws, just expect there to be these flaws is such a highly used and complex application. I'm not saying MS is anywhere near on top of security updates as it should be, but flaws and new hacks must be anticipated in today's digital industry.