Slashdot Mirror
Howard Schmidt Resigns As Cybersecurity Advisor
scubacuda writes "CNN and others report that former Microsoft chief of security Howard Schmidt has resigned as White House cybersecurity adviser. 'With the historic creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the transfer of many of the responsibilities from the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board and the release of the strategy, I have decided to retire after approximately 31 years of public service and return to the private sector,' Schmidt said in his April 21 e-mail."
I mean, I know we saw plenty of "What's good for Microsoft is good for America" rhetoric during the anti-trust trial, but that would be a bit over the top.
I might be way off here, but didn't he just recently ACCEPT this position and he's already resigning?
...a Beowulf cluster of these resignations!
2 whole months!
I wonder what really made him quit?
Good Job. We all know how secure Microsft products are.
/troll
/sarcasm
I nominate Hillary Rosen to be the next Cybersecurity advisor
I can just imagine the look on their faces...
"Wait a minute...this guy was the Chief of Security for who?!?"
the security advisor resigns via e-mail? doesn't anyone find this a little bit ironic? :)
WTF? He's only been there for like 2 months. Why was he fired? This is truly disapointing for the welfare of our government's computer systems. Who else could possibly be more qualified than the former Chief Security Officer for Microsoft Corporation?
No, I read the articles linked in the Slashdot story.
Apparently his suggestion to replace Dr. Pepper with Code Red in all the vending machines was the final straw.
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
>No, I read the articles linked in the Slashdot story.
Look buddy, if you're going to be pulling shit like that, I'm afraid you're just going to have to leave.
Having worked with Howard during his time with the Air Force, and having followed his career in the private sector and post-Air Force public service, this is really too bad.
For those who don't know (which I assume is most of you), Howard was a pioneer in the area of computer evidence analysis, first as a 'local' police officer, and then as a federal Special Agent. It's important to note that his time at Microsoft had nothing to do with their products (this in response to all those "we all know how secure Microsoft products are" trolls out there).
He and his wife are avid computer users, and Howard was one of the few people I've ever encountered at his level in Government service that could talk to you about technology and computers with any degree of real understanding. He built his own machines (at least when I was working with him) and was taught classes on low-level file system internals and disk layouts.
He became involved with computer crime at a time when only hard-core hackers (not crackers) were really playing around with computers, and paved the way for many others who are themselves pioneers in the information security community, both in the public and private sectors. The atmosphere created and fostered during his time at the Air Force allowed many people to grow and learn, and many of them are not only members of the InfoSec community, but the open-source community as well.
I'd better quit before this turns into blatant fanboyism, if it hasn't already. My intent is not to deify him, I just want all of you who've only heard him give nicely formatted press conferences or canned interviews to know that there's more to him than that. I'm not sure if you could really find someone better to be involved with the goings-on at that level, but I'm absolutely certain that you can find many many worse.
---
In other news, Microsoft announced that they had just been awarded a number of new Homeland Secuirity contracts.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
He didn't do the Austin Powers double quote thing with his fingers each time he said 'cyber'
I really need some work.
For example, Microsoft was notified of the issues, concerning only Microsoft implementation of its JVM, on September 2nd 2002 and after SEVEN MONTHS on April 9th 2003, Microsoft have issued an update to fix the problem.
Such a delay with such a serious vulnerability is so abysmal that it borders on the absurd.
Quality and security are measures which only mean something when compared relatively to another.
There is no absolutely secure, therefore you must expect, that once a vulnerability is made known to the vendor, the vendor should do their utmost to close the Window of Exposure ( http://www.counterpane.com/window.html ) as soon as possible.
For example, with the lastest SAMBA vulnerability, once notified, the SAMBA developer owned up to the mistake and the SAMBA project released a patch within 48 hours. Within aother 24hrs, redhat had already backported the patch into their distributions RPMs. Similarly any major security issues in Mozilla and Netscape browser are also fixed and updateable within a couple of days
Meanwhile, there are currently 13 KNOWN unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft's Internet Explorer ( http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ ).
Some DANGEROUSLY EXPLOITABLE have not been fixed in over a year ( http://security.greymagic.com/adv/gm002-ie/ ). That Microsoft has not rewritten the scripting system embedded with IE so that it is sandboxed by default is bad enough, but to have such major unpatched vulnerabilities exposed for months is abysmal.
Other inherent vulnerabilities, such as the Shatter attack ( http://security.tombom.co.uk/moreshatter.html ), Microsoft has known about since 1994!
Even if the API/call flaw is inherently unfixable, that is plenty of time for Microsoft to implement a safer methord/systemcall/API, adapt it's own applications to use the safer methord and depreciate the unsafe API.
It also appears that Microsoft 's own implementation of SMB is vulnerable and Microsoft has known about it for over eight years ( http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=599 60&cid=5681769 ), but Microsoft either choose not to, or cannot fix the problem themselves.
Microsoft is clearly not closing the vulnerabilities they are aware that exist in their products and services.
A year after after Bill Gate's Email promoting securtiy over functionality, Microsoft by choice, remains neither secure or trustworthy.
Microsoft's attitude towards the security of it's products, service and customers is abysmal.
From Jason Coombs' A response to Bruce Schneier on MS patch management and Sapphire ( http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/315158 )
As evidenced by the fact that this: "We are concerned that the cybersecurity issue is losing visibility inside the White House," said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America. "In this case, the 'bully pulpit' opportunity to influence the development of a truly secure cyber infrastructure and associated best practices will be lost." is one of the main opinions expressed in this article. We've elevated commerce to such a position that the perspective of a trade group is of primary importance when reporting on government and security. I know this isn't new. Business has played a large role in politics and civics (if the two can be separated) for at least the last 2000 years, but it seems especially egregious when Miller laments the loss of the "bully pulpit" as if he just got outpid for a Super Bowl commercial slot.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe, but the fact of the matter is you've done nothing to address my original post. Instead of nitpicking my statement about his position not being related to products, it would be nice if you had addressed my point, which is simply that during the time that I worked with him, he was significantly more clueful than the other administrators I've interacted with at his level.
Since it's doubtful you were employed at Microsoft during his tenure there, and even less likely to have been privy to any policy or other decisions he made while there, its fairly disingenuous for you to now judge him on the content of a few news stories. I suppose that's always the problem with any position related to security, people never hear about the incidents that DIDN'T happen.
Regardless, I'm not here to defend Howard's performance per se just to give my opinion, having worked directly with him (unlike you?) that there are certainly worse people they could tap for the job (see post below re: Hillary Rosen).
---