Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins Homeland Security Contract
syzme writes "According to The Register (as well as Reuters and News.com), 'The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has signed a deal for Microsoft software worth something in the region of $100 million, covering servers and over 140,000 desktops. This does not however mean that Microsoft and its hench-OEM Dell are poised to hoover up all of the Department's lovely IT budget, nor indeed that this is all new money for them; largely, it seems to be more a case of Microsoft holding onto business it's already got.'" This shouldn't be much of a surprise -- remember the Federal government is already Microsoft's biggest customer.
May the obligatory lame Microsoft/Security jokes begin! Fire away!
My journal has hot
So much for security in our homeland...
Given Microsoft's record of continual failure with regards to security, I've always thought putting MS in charge of security (as with Palladium) was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
Somewhere, in a deep dark cave, some terrorists are having a jolly good laugh.
Beep beep.
Good news: Orwellian homeland securty is now going to lose all your data as fast as it collects it.
Bad News: "In other news, After extensive backround checks by homeland security, Mr. Nedal Nib Amaso is now head of NTSB....."
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
This shouldn't be much of a surprise -- remember the Federal government is already Microsoft's biggest customer.
what would be the surprise? did MS do anything illegal here? or are they doing what companies do for fun; MAKING MONEY?
please stop looking at everything microsoft does as immoral - they are a company, their purpose is to make money.
Wasn't most of the DHS already around, and thus, already had desktops and software and all that garbage? Did they throw it all out instead of just installing a comparatively small set of computers and buying licenses for those?
Man, I wouldn't have voted for that!
Anyone have a pointer to what I need to do to tell the government where my tax money should be sent?
In fact, it would be nice of them to provide a "do not use this money for Microsoft products" option.
The Homeland Security Advisory System's current threat level has been elevated to 'blue' (Immanent threat of terrorism due to blue screen)
Jon Bardin
What's needed now is serious, patient lobbying, rather than anti-MS zealotry. Microsoft must be respectfully exposed to civil liberties arguments, rather than constantly defaced and hacked, or it will be a major party to ratcheting up surveillance and electronic oppression.
I bet they're really crying about that deal now.
Security can only be as good as the most insecure point, which doesn't make me feel to good about Microsoft winning this contract.
Imagine this senario: DoHS employee writes up a memo about who they are currently profiling and what information they have on file and saves it to his hard drive. Some terrorist writes an e-mail virus designed to send word file back to an account he can access. He then sends this virus to a department account where it spreads and sensitive information is transmitted back to the terrorist.
Virusus like these have already been proven viable in MS Outlook. One can only hope that they are taking the appropriate measures to ensure that all employees have their computers locked down tight.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
One of the reasons the Feds are MS's biggist customer is becouse almost every computer has two, even three licences. Most organizations buy a site licences and then get one with the Dell PC. If only Dell sold PC's without licences...
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Since MS did a bid, can we get a list of competing bids as well as criteria? It would be interesting to review...
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
Rings of government using Homeland Security dollars to improve IT without actually improving security.
This shouldn't be much of a surprise -- remember the Federal government is already Microsoft's biggest customer.
No, it shouldn't.
The US federal government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world.
The above statement seems to imply something ugly, when in fact MANY companies' largest customer is the federal government.
...will be illegal and a sign of terrorism?
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
That it's a lot of money. Otherwise it seems to be pretty par for the course and nothing really noteworthy.
Now a move AWAY from Microsoft would be news.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
"This security patch addresses both previous and newly discovered security vulnerabilities pertaining to homeland security."
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
that DHS already has many Open Source (and non-MS) apps widely deployed... They are extensively using Apache, Squid, Open Office (in some places) and things like Java for other day to day operations...
t ec h.htm
Some of their integration efforts are mentioned here:
http://www.govexec.com/features/1202/1202manage
(Disclaimer: I work for DHS.)
Of course the spooks require closed-source software -- closed-source makes back doors possible.
If the software were open-source, someone would find and publish any nasty little secrets hidden in the code.
-kgj
"The Department has purchased a Microsoft enterprise licence via Dell"
Lovely! Another example of Gov't spending too much - they could get the license directly from MS and save alot... Its not like they're some small mom and pop company, I mean dang.
That they'd make use of SE Linux, since they helped develop it.
Also, you'd think they'd want a variety of O/S's, ect, for security purposes.
It shall be very funny/ironic when "Homeland Security" gets hacked due to some newfound MS flaw. Actually, i'm frightened, as they will probably have ever detail they can glean from every person they can, opened up to some arsehole
"This does not however mean that Microsoft... are poised to hoover up all of the Department's lovely IT budget...."
hmm... Microsoft software running DHS and its tracking of US citizens. Shouldn't that be J. Edgar Hoover?
I for one welcome our new technology overlords!
sauve qui peut!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I see you are trying to bomb a country.
Would you like help?
-Get help with bombing the country
-Just bomb the country without help
Crap! Sure won't be the Department of Homeland Stability.
Note that this MPU comment appeared exactly 2 minutes after the parent post. Guess who posted it? ;)
Given Microsoft's record of continual failure with regards to security, I've always thought putting MS in charge of security (as with Palladium) was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
Given that 'homeland security' is really a euphemism for something between 'Big Brother' ("total informational awareness" etc.) and 'Political Police', I for one am relieved they are sufficiently incompetent to select Microsoft as their platform. This may, and I stress may, slow down our slide into a complete surveillance society submerged beneath ubiquitous governance.
Or not, as it may be just the prelude needed for even more draconian legislation and public hysteria when Microsoft's chronic security issues begin to affect our perceived safety, leading to the unpleasant irony of having the technical ability to monitor and ubiquitously govern every man, woman, child, dog, cat, and garden slug in the country diminished while providing the political excuse for accelerating legislation through congress that makes the former pre-Gorbochov soviet parliament look positively liberal by comparison.
What we do know for certain is that it puts a lot of money in the pockets of a convicted monopolist, which isn't helpful to anyone (other than said monopolist).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
All IP traffic within the US must be monitored and logged.
All computers using IP resources in the US must be trust(ed,worthy).
All software running on trust(ed,worthy) systems must be verified and signed by DHS-approved auditing body.
Due to the enormous expense of this undertaking, a surcharge will be applied to every CPU, HDD, and piece of software used on trusted machines. DHS-approved auditing bodies will use the proceeds to monitor and manage all computer systems within the US.
Circumvention or non-compliance shall be a felony, punishable by not less than five years in prison and $10,000 fine for each violation.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
All that violence, and for nothing.. Instead of suicide bombers, and the like, they will only need to train 3l33t 5kr|pt K|dd135 to kik our asses into oblivion. Hell, a few good buffer overflows, maybe DoS for good measure, and they'll have the keys to this kingdom. Thanx MS!
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs" - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
Wasn't me. I'm fine on karma.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
These dapper heros are falling on the M$ grenade, to save us.
Someone actually got the words Microsoft and Security in the same subject line! :)
So much for Homeland "Security".
Now now, let's not be so quick to criticize. Securing Microsoft systems is extremely simple:
This about covers it all. National security and Microsoft. Wrapped up in one...
Have fun with this
-B
is it april fools day?
oh wait, its july....i guess its just fools day...
microsoft and security - -- the oxymoron of the millenia...
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
...using the sophisticated simulation of minesweeper.
Of course, the government is not only collecting information on individuals, they collect it on anything we're involved in, including our jobs and businesses.
It's pretty well-documented that Microsoft's software is full of holes and that they're not particularly good at fixing them. Witness Microsoft's own computers being taken down by a worm. My concern is that we've just given not-so-well-intentioned foreign parties a free pass to take a look at everything that's going on in the United States. Holes and hacks will be found. If they really cared about "security," they'd use a blend of different programs and software. Sure, a little more work, but a lto more work to penetrate.
IAAL
It's no wonder dealing with the feds takes for ever, they're always in the middle of a server reboot. Someone want to tell them that server uptime is supposed to be greater then on-hold queue time?
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
only if the wolf is bloated beyond movement and has to be poked with a stick because it keeps falling asleap
//comments are for suckers
//coders read code
It always has to be something negitive with you /.ers.
"640 K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981
'There are three stages in your reintegration,' said O'Brien. 'There is learning, there is understanding, and there is acceptance. It is time for you to enter upon the second stage.' ...
Do you remember writing in your diary, "I understand how: I do not understand why"? It was when you thought about "why" that you doubted your own sanity. ...
'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'
He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.
'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'
'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If they considered open source with support from someone they'd invariably go with the lowest bidder who would surely proceed to screw things up... Most software contracts the gov't purchase are huge wastes of money. At least with micro$oft thay have a good idea of what they're getting and doing a half-assed job of maintaining their desktop's doesn't require much knowledge.
what would be the surprise? did MS do anything illegal here? or are they doing what companies do for fun; MAKING MONEY?
The problem I see here is that Microsoft's customer is the government. Where did the government get their money? Did they work hard and earn it? Hell, no! They took it by force. If the government wants more money, do they have to work harder for it or cut expenses (like the rest of us do)? Of course not! They just haul out the guns and take it! So, no, they didn't do anything illegal. They did something that is anti-freedom.
please stop looking at everything microsoft does as immoral - they are a company, their purpose is to make money.
Lots of Leftists think that making money is inherently immoral. I am not one of them, so your argument here is ineffective on me. I think Microsoft is immoral for other reasons. These are reasons for which they have never apologized, for which they have never tried to make amends, and that they show no signs of stopping.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
... courtesy of the rejected post machine. The government sector news sites are always good - and usually better - for details about contracts of this sort:
Microsoft/Dell Gets $90-$120 Million Homeland Security Contract
Microsoft has been awarded the five-year, $90 million Department of Homeland Security contract for desktop and server software. The contract will be managed by Dell and will provide the DHS with 140,000 desktops running Windows XP and Microsoft Office Professional. When consolidated with current agreements, the contract amounts to a six-year agreement covering 144,000 desktops, worth between $110 million and $120 million. This follows the $478 million, six-year deal with the Army announced last month. More at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Washington Post, InformationWeek, the Register , eWEEK, and Reuters.
I always thought that the Department of Home Security was a temporary thing. I guess this is a wake up call for me. I always thought that Department of Home Security would just, go away.
Something you invest $100,000,000 is designed to stay.
There is no US Company that is better integrated into the US Goverment (especially DoD) than Microsoft. And anyone that says "Linux" instead knows little about the deep-seeded failings of the OSS security, or widescale deployability. The only other legitimate choice for a 'solution' contract like this would be an Apple/IBM combo, but they don't even currently make such offerings except via contractor.
Integration is where it's at. Whether you realize it or not.
This is worse than those 600 dollar hammers a few years back.90 million dollars wasted on winXp and officeXp.What can they do with that software that I cant do with free debian and openoffice?
everyone involved with this deal should immediately be subjected to a background probe....somebody on this team is working for the other guys.
//comments are for suckers
//coders read code
The US government is pretty much *everyones'* biggest customer.
an oxymoron.
"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has signed a deal for MandrakeSoft Linux software worth something in the region of $0 (free), covering servers and over 140,000 desktops."
Instead they paid $100 million of our tax dollars to a company who is breaking antitrust laws. Maybe Microsoft isn't the bad guy here.
Microsoft isn't about making money so much any more. They're about maintaining control. The loss of an entire city government in an anti-American and anti-Microsoft country is a defeat that will probably have ripple effects which scare the poo out of Microsoft.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
...this is still news. It just shows that if such a contract is news, MS still got a long way to go before getting fully accepted.
Is there any other real option for the government? I'm assuming everyone here wants a distro of Linux to be the government's OS of choice. Which one? Red Hat? Are they a large enough company to ensure 24/7 tech support on the governments' 140,000 computers? I don't know, and I don't think the government does either. I think Microsoft was the safe choice. Granted it's not the more secure operating system, but their needs go beyond that.
2003-07-16 01:37:32 Homeland Insecurity? (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The reason that everyone (including the federal guvnment) still uses Microsoft is because, It Just Works(TM). I can pull windows out of its box, put it in my computer, and have it running in about 30 minutes. I don't have to manually pick out kernel drivers like with debian, I don't have to worry about RedHat not recognizing half my hardware (like my ATI or my AC97 sound chip). I can take any lance corporal off the field, and with windows, he's most likely to know how to at least do basic stuff like surf the web, read e-mail, etc. If the guvment were to use Linux, they would have to spend additional manpower on installation, more man power keeping those boxes up to date (or pay money for RedHats up2date service), not to mention retraining a lot of staff on how to use these computers.
Another reason for the Government choosing Windows is that they probally already have a majority of their services on windows, and to ask a Four Star General to approve a massive budget to switch away from what works to what might not work will take quite a bit of effort.
Wow....that karma just burned brightly....
Running Microsoft products does mean they'll be at the forefront of any computer attacks. Maybe they're just thinking outside of the box.</sarcasm>
Government spending accounts for 25% of the US GDP. While this is stageringly large, the 75% of non compulsory spending is much bigger.
The ugly thing is that Microsoft provides the worst of all web services, yet seems to be favored by the current administration. It makes no sense whatsoever for Microsoft to be getting these contracts when IBM, Red Hat, Debian, Caldera (yes even brain dead SCO), HP, Sun and countless other good US firms can do the job better and cheaper. Tell me that the US government is the largest cusomer of all the above and that their products are well represented in federal spending and I might change my opinion. A vauge statement that nothing is wrong here does not do it.
For me, this just goes to show that Homeland Security has no clue.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
$90 million to provide licenses for 140,000 desktops? That's ~$642 per PC, just for licencing! I can just about build a complete computer for about that same price.
It's not the Osamas or the Al Qaeda operatives that are the concern here. I think the real threat to DOHS's security infrastructure are the numerous folks out there within the good ol' US of A, that aren't necessarily in support of what they might consider the prelude to a police state, i.e., the DOHS. I would suspect that that latter catagory boasts a large cadre of 1337 skillsets.
.sig
Simple, they just run all of it on .NET
Haven't you seen the commercials?
--Joe
If you think about the reliability, uptime, and random reboot problems with many MS products then this could be great for us citizens.
We know all of the attempts to restrict our personal freedoms with wire taps, internet/email monitoring, and the ideology to put all of the collected info into a massive database for those who have the clearance to peruse. The best thing is, although, they might have your most personal info it will probably be collected and stored by a MS product.
What does that mean? It means it will either disapear or just spontaneously fragment and corrupt itself! Why our goverment chooses bloatware over dependablity and functionality is beyond me but they were never known for being frugal or making the best decisions in terms of bang for the buck. I'm sure MS is practically giving it away just to keep the business anyway.
It makes you wonder how many fuckups happen just out of using MS software. I'm not saying it's the worst or best because it does have it's use but since this story is about our goverment using it I'd prefer a more stable and dependable os/desktop. When I think of mixing MS software with our goverment all I see is the movie "Wargames" and that's not a nice thought.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Funny how the US government is Microsoft's biggest customer yet Microsoft (Bill Gates) has told the government (privately) that Microsoft will never program anything specifically for the government in terms of security, compiling abilities, customization, etc.
...will we be handing out EULAs to anyone that wants to have diplomatic ties with us?
"...By installing this embassy, you absolve the United States Government of any responsibility for lost revenue, citizens, or infrastructure. Furthermore, you agree that you will not attempt to negatively influence the revenue, citizens, or infrastructure of the United States..."
blog |
It's ugly, because the Numero Uno, Most Stinkinest, Slimiest company to many here has the Fed as its biggest customer.
They aren't selling toilet paper or office supplies, you know.
Think of the inherent cost in training 100,000+ people to use an OS they never have before. We're not talking about a group of techies here, these are computers for the entire department.
Think how Larry Ellison feels!
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
What makes it news is it's part of a contract consolidation by the US government which is helping cut costs. The six year contract will get Microsoft much less money than they're used to from the government. For the dollar value spread over the length of the contract it's not much money for Microsoft. Continuing under these terms is actually a loss for them compared to the past, except for the fact it keeps linux off those desktops for the next 6 years.
Developers: We can use your help.
I hear the Coast Guard is trying to get an exemption from having to use Windows.
:-D
Too many open ports.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I think they should use Synapse... It was pretty effective at the end of the movie "That's what Synapse is!"
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
"Oh shit. There goes the planet..."
If we had only been running Find Fast in Iraq then locating Saddam et. al. would have been so much easier...
(Of course we'd also have had all our tanks disabled by the I Love You virus...)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Presumably, this includes a support contract. 144,000 pc's for 5 years. Only $125/year each. It always sounds worse in aggregate.
How much would RedHat charge to equip and support 144,000 PC's for 5 years? (not counting the massive migration costs associated)
Who told you that? Did you consider that people actually write that clasified information to begin with? Yeah, these are normal people and they are going to be using normal computers, Microsoft now.
At least in nuclear power, safegaruds information guides have no clue. Eight months ago, it was considered OK to edit and store safegaurds information on a regular PC, so long as you disconected the network while you were working on the information. Safegaurds information is stuff like plutonium inventory. In paper form, it's supposed to be kept under lock and key and you are never supposed to leave it out on your desk while you go take a piss. Viruses like SirCam totaly obliterate the precatuions taken. I doubt the folks in Homland Security have much more of a clue than this.
Tell me how a Department of Homaland Security computer is going to have Total Information Awareness without being attached to a network. Tell me then what's going to keep that information from flowing through all the holes Microsoft is famous for.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm sure they'll secure those machines well, padlocks, keycard entry systems.
:)
Oh you meant the OS....
It's sort of ironic that the U.S. government is Microsoft's biggest customer, and at the same time was prosecuting them for being a monopoly. If the government just switched to some other OS (Linux or Mac OS) the monopoly would instantly come to an end.
Fox News Channel gets singled out because it dares to be balanced. This is why it gets picked on by those who insist that the only media should be that with a stringent left-wing bias.
FOX is definately not balanced, despite their claims. The conservative viewpoint definately gets the upper-hand. It's not one-tenth as biased as Dan Rather is, but it isn't "balanced" either. I think that the market was demanding a FOX news, and it got one. I think that Leftists are upset because they don't have a stranglehold on the televised bully pulpit any more. Remember, Leftists, like Christians, would much rather preach than debate. This is why they suck at talk radio: they can't face the callers who will challenege their fact- and reason-deprived positions.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
One night, I was like, writing a report on how Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Nigeria, when all of a sudden it went berserk, the screen started flashing, it was like BEEP BEEP BEEP and the whole paper just disappeared. All of it. And it was a good report! I had to cram and rewrite it really quickly. Needless to say, my rushed report wasn't nearly as good, and now Tony Blair is like, in danger of losing his job!
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Guys (Gals and the transgendered):
1. April Fool's Day was over 4.5 months ago. LAME!
2. This would be funny if Microsoft had not cited national security concerns as a reason why they were unwilling to release code. I can't find a link to that now, but there was an MS VP who made a statement along those lines last year: Releasing MS source could endanger national security because of problems with the code.
That MS now wins the "Homeland Security" contract just sounds like an oxymoron.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Didn't MS give the Chinese government the source code to Windows for their review? Did the US_DHS get the same opportunity? IMO, this contract just makes it easier for rogue nations and terrorists to spy on US govt agencies.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
IE crapped out and came up with the error report screen.
I have seen the future of government applications, and it is buggy.
Perhaps you meant "Alles ist verloren?" If so, you got one word right out of three in the subject, ignoring for the present the capitalization.
With respect to the topic at hand, I remember how excited everyone was about the expanding internet masses when the unwashed masses of non-technical users began to come online.
I enjoy Linux just the way it is -- a road less travelled. I will probably continue to enjoy it if it's use becomes even more widespread, but it is already good, free (as in freedom) and it is free (as in beer). This is hardly a disaster.
...the terrorists will have won.
Just because it's a cliche doesn't mean it can't be true...
Windows would make it OSAMAB~1
Nit-picky, I know...
2003 fiscal deficit is now 500,100,000,000.
/. opinions on this development are as follows:
A synopsis of the
Microsoft wins contract for homeland security?
-I feel safer already.
-What's that, an oxymoron?
-We would have caught Osamma but the server was down.
-We could have caught Saddam but the server had a virus.
-We could have stopped xyz but they were using unix and we couldn't read the file format.
-In the interests of national security all computers must now run Windows.
-Please change all NSC keys in the hive to DHS.
-All you base are belong to us.
...will require activation through the Dept. Homeland Security. You may achieve this through a simple https connection via any Passport server.
Please be aware that any relocation, or weight change, may require a new activation, since for homeland security purposes, your personal activation code will consist of a special combination of address, phone number, SSN, and weight.
At first I thought it said "Microsoft wins homeland security CONTEST". My jaw hit the floor. Then I re-read it and realized nothing had changed. *whew*
---- Move SIG...For great justice!
Since a large percentage of the regulars here are software developers, including those that have been doing this since before Microsoft, there is a certain attitude about the eligance of solutions and the art of software. No reason to be alarmed -- it's completely analogous to asking a master chef about McDonald's food or a sports car enthusiast about mini-vans.
That being said -- I agree there should be no surprize about the latest army of federal drones ordering the same machines they sell to junior high school kids.
Sleep is for the Weak
Microsoft is probably one of the Federal Government's biggest customers? :) After all, we have the best democracy that money can buy.
at least we can now acertain that the government isn't REALLY serious about this issue.
.. the words security and Microsoft are pretty much polar opposites - unless your talking about cash reserves.
I mean
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
I know that this doesn't protect againt trojans in MP3s or e-mail virus, but if one were to implement a Virus Scanner at Firing Wall, you could keep most of that crap off your network, and when something new hit the network, auto-remove all attachments from incoming e-mail until norton puts out a patch and you can scan the mail properly again.
degrades security by not letting you do what you want with your own content on your own machine
First, you blast Microsoft for being able to do too much, then in the next sentence you blast them for not doing enough? And I think that if the Government wants to run Missile Tracker 3.0 (which is unsigned), since they are the largest consumer of Microsoft software, I think they might be able to get Microsoft to find a way around it reaaaal quick.
Didn't Suse charge Munich over $35M for 14,000 seats? 140,000 seats for $100M sounds like a good deal in comparison.
Vote for Pedro
I've never followed a goatse link. What exactly are they? I don't want to follow one, either. Could someone just describe it to me?
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
6. ????
7. Prof...
nah, this IS getting old...
> was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep
Actually, it's more like putting a scarecrow to guard the sheep. I don't think Microsoft has the intentions of the wolf -- it just is no damn good a security.
Let's see, "over" 140,000 desktops which could be 144,000 desktops, so how does the following apply:
Gee, I knew M$ had apocalyptic practices, but sheesh ...
I like theese oxymorons: Great Britain United Kingdom
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.
People joke about MS security being bad, but Linux is no better. I'm pointing out that the parent is a troll.
Vote for Pedro
Sylvester Wins Tweety-Bird Security Contract. Film at 11.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
"And if you are trolling, I see that it wouldn't be the first time, as I noticed from the last 24 comments you posted."
If having a dissenting opinion is trolling, guilty as charged. If you also noticed, I was modded up on several posts as well.
Vote for Pedro
That's your opinion. Next.
yet seems to be favored by the current administration."
Show me how previous administrations favored other software vendors over Microsoft. It's not like the federal government suddenly switched from Linux to Microsoft when Bush took office.
It makes no sense whatsoever for Microsoft to be getting these contracts when IBM, Red Hat, Debian, Caldera (yes even brain dead SCO), HP, Sun and countless other good US firms can do the job better and cheaper.
Again, that's your opinion. The people making the decision apparently disagree with your assessment. Of course you could defend your assertions with wild accusations of political back-scratching and the like, but when all is said and done, you still haven't produced any facts.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Wouldn't the analogy be more like asking a mentally handicap person guarding the sheep? Probably a very big insult to the mentally handicapped person in this case.... I go for asking a rock to guard the sheep.
...I've always thought putting MS in charge of security (as with Palladium) was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
Perhaps one of these analogies would work, too:
It's like putting a steel door on a cardboard box.
It's walking into a battlefield backwards.
It's like carrying a tiger-repellant rock.
It's like driving eyes-closed because "God is my pilot (or whatever)"
Basically, Microsoft + Homeland Security = a smoking hole that will become the ocean separating Mexico and Canada.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
As others have observed, Microsoft is not the big winner here, although it is a winner. It gets to consolidate and aggregate its existing business, and sure it's probably squeezing Apple, IBM, etc some more here and there with this contract. And sure, it has locked down this portion of market share for FIVE MORE YEARS, which is bad. But...
The big winner is Dell. It's administering all this software business. It skims whatever it can before passing the lion's share on to Microsoft. It acquires a huge list of potential "customers" and tries to sell them Dell hardware. And it squeezes out a bunch of small fry who were ensconced in cozy government contracts. Excerpted from Government Computer News:. html:
http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/22743-1
The department reached the agreement earlier this month, after inviting nine bidders, including GTSI Corp. of Chantilly, Va., and MarkSoft Management Resources Inc. of Canterbury, N.H., to present proposals.
Seriously, who are those two companies that got mentioned? Either wannabees, or hasbeens. Dell ate their lunch, and Dell has some other merchandise it would enjoy selling to the 280,000 eyeballs it just acquired for the next five years.
This is modded funny, but I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future the US government tries to block the release of information related to Windows' (in)security, and start arresting people as 'terrorists' because the information could conceivably be used to hack Homeland Security's computers.
I'm glad I'm Canadian.
Heh. I particularly like the "asside" part.
Think about it though... you can bet that Microsoft can/will now try to use "Homeland Security" as an excuse against the disclosure of vulnerabilites. People discussing, criticizing, or publicizing security flaws of their stuff might now now be labeled as "terrorists", and punished accordingly. God forbid you actually release exploit code.
Perhaps my tinfoil hat's on a little bit tight at the moment, but someone who finds yet another buffer overflow or active-x exploit might just end up disappeared or behind a fence in Cuba...
I dont' know man, you're linking unneducated anti linux FUD. It's not a matter of opinion, but lack of information.
I would be curious to know if you've actually looked at data, and come to the conclusion that Linux is less secure than Windows stuff. If that's the case, I might suggest that you keep on reading and get the whole picture!
Cuz security really couldn't get much worse than MS offerings.
What I'm saying is, wether or not you mean to troll, that's the net effect. If you do have a compelling reason as to why Linux would have been a poor security choice (clue: your link isn't it!), then I'm sure most people would like to hear it.
(moderators: yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think I just took the bait on this troll)
Pimps and whores
Idiot.
Microsoft's security track record is pretty comparable to the department of homeland security's...
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
...provide the DHS with 140,000 desktops running Windows XP...
140,000 is big enough to create a custom version of Windows intended to allow Microsoft to spy on the government...
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
You people are a broken record.
Microsoft's record of failure with regards to security is directory proportional to the fact that there are for more Windows machines out there than any other platform, hence it's under much more scrutiny.
Also, note, Unix security has historically been a complete joke, riddled with buffer overflow exploits. In fact, it largely still is a joke in terms of application exploits.
We won't be more secure but Microsoft will come up with a marketing strategy that will make us all fell better! :-D
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I feel so much better. I was starting to see 1984 come true, where cameras spied on all of the citizens, and you were tracked for the sole point of tracking. Now I can feel relief, cuz when I take a piss in the bushes outside of a QuickyMart, I know their servers won't be recording me, they'll be rebooting so they can install yet another windows critical update (tm)
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
Checked the rules on your hardware firewall/router lately? Bet there's an entry or two in there that YOU didn't make.
If Microsoft sees fit to change the rules on hardware that doesn't even belong to it, how are they going to assure homeland security when they can't even get home networking security right?
> Given Microsoft's record of continual failure with regards to security, I've always thought putting MS in charge of security (as with Palladium) was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
No, it's more like asking a sheep to guard the wolves.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Is to hear that the proposed TIA will be built on top of an MS Access database....
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Sometimes I just don't know how I should react:
1) Kill Microsoft! They're a convicted Monopolist! Why are they spending our taxdollars on that overpriced crap when they could dump half the money into Linux and some dedicated developers and have complete control over the product!
or
2) Shit. Homeland Security. Microsoft..
Maybe some battles aren't worth the fight.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
That's one degree of annihilation.
That's security with dot net.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
Uhhhh, these big government single source contracts are new. Agencies used to make PC purchases like manilla folder purchases, a detail too small to worry about. Back then a decision to buy Microsoft on a Gateway could be shown to a best purchase due to M$ anti-competitive practices. Now that the US DoJ has proven those practices, we get these new big fat contracts? Nuts.
Have you ever worked for Government or are you just spouting off?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The single largest company ever to warn people not to use their software for life-and-death situations, is now going to have an exclusive with the government to help prevent the next 9/11 attack.
Considering that the only (repeat: only ) effective Microsoft security measures to date are the ones that prevent people who've already stolen Windows-XP from upgrading it, it's pretty safe to say that we can all prepare to live with having any enemy who wants to know something knowing it while substantial numbers of us sit around glowing in the dark.
Today's bonus question: 'will the government's relationship with Microsoft include a EULA that precludes the government's suing them when they screw up?'
It's amazing what you can do to a society with enough money.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
So when the data has been compiled and it's given to the big boss, what do you think it's going to be? The big boss is going to open some kind of Word doc or a Power Point presentation, "Osama-been-here-and-there". Even if it's done by SHTML, the browser cache will be harvested and sent on. Holes, man great big, gaping M$ holes for the most important information of all.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The trough is being filled election on horizon.
Almost as bad as Chicago during the 60s, the constituancy of the Seattle area has become an area of special interest to the people who do the greasing. Lets see so far this year; Millitary software 800 million National Security 100 million , I guess they have screwed up with the aircraft industry though. Come on you guys you can do alot better than a puny 1 billion of voter grease. Ok lets see if we can stick it to the competition what was that about SCO? and what about those Germans buying Linux we will just have to see about that too. That will make them happier in Seattle.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
> And that would be 121 people working for 4 years!
And remember! If you work for MSFT, now you get paid in restricted stock, not stock options!
That's right! You pay all the income *tax* as if you'd cashed in stock options up front, and you get all the *risk* of owning stock! Don't you feel more motivated already? 80-hour work weeks for everyone! Woohoo!
(Sorry, son, too many of you became millionaires in the last boom. Can't have that happen again. Stock options are only for the important people now.)
If you think I'm so crazy, then answer me this question:
Who isolated HIV according to the Rules of Isolation established at the Pasteur Institute? Giving me a name is insufficient; you must show me the paper which declares which person fulfilled each and all of the Rules of Isolation.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I did some short term consulting work with a company recently to help them prepare some bids on the last BAA (Broad Agency Announcement) sent out by the DHS. The scope and scale of the projects that were in the request were quite interesting, with some that were tailor made for linux (wearable computing initiatives, anyone?).
We haven't heard any updates on the bid selection, but after looking at a good portion of those potential projects I can truthfully say that Microsoft is going to have a really tough time filling the required roles for many of them, let alone doing it securely.
> Bad News: "In other news, After extensive backround checks by homeland security, Mr. Nedal Nib Amaso is now head of NTSB....."
Surveying the smoldering crater, President Ballmer was heard to remark "Y'know, they should have known that J0N45H-C40FT15-054M4-B1NL4-D3NIN-4-P16-5U1T wasn't a valid activation key."
OK, so they may not make the most reliable cars in the world anymore (still most fun to drive)
but at least they (Munich city hall linux story) chose the more stable and SECURE OS than US Homeland Security.
Their 1st task and possibly their primary task for years to come will be securing their own desktops from spyware (gator, bonzi,etc) and worms, viruses, trojans, etc.
I guess they will have to downlod service packs and hotfixes like everyone else.
Maybe I'm just feeling particularly Jeffersonian today, but the more fouled up the "Ministry" of Homeland Security is, the safer I feel.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Wolf to guard the sheep? I think that analogy is incorrect. M$ will not predate on DHS, they just treat security as an afterthought. They bring out their latest offering, ie same dammed thing with more wiz bangs than you will ever need and then go and fix all the holes as "other" people discover them. They seem to belive very much in security thru obscurity in practice. If you do not know about our security holes you cannot take advantage of them. Its more like asking a lamb to guard the sheep than a wolf to do so.
One wonders how much Bill charged the government for each copy of Windows sold containing NSA_KEY. Perhaps that accounts for the "biggest customer" ranking?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Now that they've used it, I would think they would have known better :)
Karma Clown
The products responsible for Homeland Security are programmed in India and China.
-R
So criticizing MS security gets mod point, but pointing out how flawed the criticizing is by showing Linux security is flawed amounts to trolling. Nice objectivity. What else are you going to censor because it isn't slashdot politically correct?
Vote for Pedro
$100 million / 140,000 = $714.29
Do they really need to buy seven hundred dollars of software for each computer? That must be comparable to the cost of the hardware. And people *still* consider Microsoft a viable option?
"Think before you click the "submit" button. "
I was thinking far enough ahead to already anticipate this response. The fact that more people use MS makes it a bigger target for hackers. There's more incentive if you can compromise more machines. we're talking about known hacks, not total hacks. Therefore, the fact that a bigger target ended up with reported security problems at the very least casts doubt on Linux security superiority. I'm not on an anti-Linux campaign, I'm just sick of people bashing MS security when Linux isn't any more reliable.
Vote for Pedro
I just so happen to work for the Department of the Navy, and have since before the current administration.
And even before I started working on the base, you know what just about every workstation was? Micron P3 550MHz boxes. You know what OS was running on them? Microsoft Windows NT. Every one of them.
So don't try to tell me that large-scale government computer contracts are new and unique to the Bush administration. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
My government just threw away two perfectly good F22s. Not shot down by enemies, not lost in training accident or due to pilot error -- just siphoned away by waste and probably a bit of corruption. Lovely.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
In general, DHS has been an organizational nightmare and a half. Remember how much they had to integrate from the rest of the US government?
They basically took over US Customs-part of the Dep't of the Treasury for two centuries.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service and it's sub-component, the US Border Patrol, have long been part of the Dep't of Justice. Those two agencies essentially were meant to regulate who and what crossed the US borders, but were part of separate (and rival) cabinet-level departments. And the agency which controlled the issuance of visas to foreign nationals was part of the State Department, yet a third cabinet department.
The Federal Protective Service, basically a police department and physical security consulting service for most nonmilitary Federal property, was part of the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service, an independent agency of office managers and real estate agents. Now they get to integrate into DHS.
FEMA used to be an independent agency, which mainly oversaw disaster-reconstruction money, flood insurance, and model fire-prevention codes and training. Now they're in DHS.
CIA was an independent agency. I think they're part of DHS now.
In the name of duplication, the US Marshall's Service in the Dep't of Justice used to provide the same security function for Federal courts that the Federal Protective Service did for most other Federal property. DHS tried to take that away from them. Don't think they succeeded, though.
The National Infrastructure Protection Center was taken away from FBI and added to DHS. It's a wonder the rest of the feebies were left alone.
The US Coast Guard has traditionally been a part of the Department of Transportation during peacetime, and part of the Navy during wartime. They almost got sucked into DHS.
When you fly into a US airport from abroad, you'll see three different uniforms before you can even worry about making a connecting flight. INS inspectors (white shirts with guns) check your passport. Now they're part of DHS. Then Customs inspectors (navy shirts with guns) to make sure you don't have any drugs or counterfeit blue jeans. And THEN white shirts without guns to ask you about fruits and vegetables and crop pests. They're a third agency, the US Dep't of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. No shit, DHS almost took them over too.
So, I think it's fair to say that IT integration is the least of the organizational headaches DHS will have this year.
Why doesn't some hot-shot newspaper hire some hot-shot security expert to probe these systems and identify (but not expoit) the weaknesses? There have to be dozens. There are killer headlines there, and it'd be dead easy for a paper to do. Newspeople take risks like this all the time.
Erik
Don't you mean the department of Homeland Insecurity?
--
Adobe's anti-counterfeiting softw
Reality isn't so black and white as this, and I know plenty of MS-centric people who know what they're talking about, just as many Mac people who know their wares, many of whom more experienced than me I'm sure. But to say that Linux has zero support suggests that documentation isn't counted, which I count and count on daily. Speaking of documentation, Try using MS's knowledgebase to find an article on a specific issue, then hop to google.com/linux and look up how to do something specific in Linux, then tell me which one procuded a usable answer faster and easier.
As far as why more people don't use Linux, or any otehr OS, why not ask the hardware vendors that one. They sell the systems with Windows pre-installed to customers who have bought into the marketing over the years and are now floating though MS-land on auto-pilot. Someone interested in using Linux still for the most part has to install it themselves, something most people have no desire to do even to spite the OS they might percieve as evil (personally I don't think MS does anything any other profit-motivated entity would do given the position they're in; Everyone wants to own a monopoly in business, that's the reason we have public and consumer rights laws right?).
I hear end-users say "Gates is evil", "Microsoft is an monopoly", etc, all the time, though relearning their own computer is too much to do to put their feelings into some action. I can't blame them. If I wasn't interested in this stuff in the first place I'd probably be in the same situation.
Also when was the last time you saw an MS box act as a DDOS drone?
Your kidding right? Look here.
... the next will be when Bugatti releases an SUV.
Given that there is practically no defense being offered for Microsoft nor the Dept. of Homeland Security in the above discussion, one has to wonder why these large contracts keep occurring and occurring and occurring. If they aren't based on merit, then what? What hard arguments do companies provide to keep going along with Microsoft's products? It isn't as if there were no alternatives, historically, and TCO arguments are fallacious at best.
The state of the current software industry makes me feel as if nothing is real and there is no reward for quality. It is really discouraging and makes me wonder if churning out more and more software is becoming counter-productive to the health of our civilization. Add in the recent economy, and I am beginning to see non-software-development and non-systems-administration jobs in my peripheral vision. These jobs are becoming more attractive, and it is almost to a point, where finding a job with no computer in sight is a compelling thought.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Together they can look for enemies among us since the enemies not among us have discovered it's possible to run and hide after all, largely because the phony intelligence on which the War-of-the-Week is based continues to be the basis for policy long after the intelligence community that invented it no longer wants it to be believed.
At what point did we all wake up to find we're living in a Pynchon novel?
Yup....we're definately screwed. Hell, just hearding the words "Microsoft" and "security" in the same phrase without a negation is disturbing.
M$'s track record with security is worse than Exxon Valdez's record doubled.
Plus, this adds to the $600 Hammer and $300 toilet seat issue.
It means "guarded condition", immediately above green ("low threat level") and below yellow ("elevated risk of terror attack"). Personally I find it redundant to have this department since the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DIA should have caught the 09/11 attacks before they happened in the first place. But nevertheless the "blue" level does exist.
n d/ bluecondition.html
_ th reat_chart_4.html
Links:
http://www.volusiahealth.com/eh/PocketPC/Homela
http://www.ch1hawaii.com/n/hlsec/national_alert
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
so basicly now terrorists don't have to try as hard as before to get in and on top of that microsoft is still ready to take over the world....oh well could have been worse rather than msft/dell it could have been msft-HP or msft/e-machines *shudders*
I for one have seen less credible links posted over and over and over again. The old chestnut about the stalled Navy ship comes to mind.
Well, it might be that the Department of Homeland security itself is using Microsoft, but they might be the only ones. I work for a company that is directly involved with DHS and we use mostly linux software for the work we do. As a matter of fact, we are DoE contract and if it can be done in linux, we do it in linux, otherwise we succumb to the dark side. So there is hope yet.
Welcome to my friend list, RevMike. :)
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
As some of you may know, Computerworld sends out a free email newsletter. Here are two consecutive headlines from the July 16, 2003 Afternoon Update:
Microsoft Warns Of Widespread Windows Vulnerability
Homeland Security Department To Buy Microsoft Software
Sleep snug, guys.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The fact is that Microsoft serves its consumers better than Linux, Amiga, or any of the other minor companies (Apple, etc.).
Stop right there! That, sir, is also a mistaken assumption. It may well be that Microsoft's popularity these days is merely down to inertia, the pressure of Microsoft software being so ubiqutous, and MS clients feeling they have no other realistic choice than Microsoft.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
DoHS is an aggregate of dozens of organizations all of whom had existing MS software. It was a no brainer for them to consolidate all of that into a master contract with better pricing and simplified tracking. They should do that to simplify things and save taxpayer money even if they ultimately move to alternative software.
All the people that complain about people who hold microsoft to a higher standard may want to consider that MS's biggest customer is the Federal Govn't, which is paid for by us, the tax payers. So in a limited, but actual way, we have a duty to hold microsoft to a minimum standard of fair play and honest business practices.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Anyway, the poster you're referring to makes a very good point - once you homogenize everything, you make *everybody* vulnerable. So let's say Machine 1 is running SQL Server, and is hit by the slammer worm, then everyother machine that has SQL Server running can also be hit, and in turn hit other servers. This same scenario nearly took down the internet a while back, certainly could do the same at a major gov. office.
A simpler analogy is in science: let's say you introduce a new engineered corn, designed to withstand such and such, and fast growing etc. Now a certain plant disease, that evolves to not be harmed by whatever chemicals are used to grow the corn, simply lays waste to *all* the plants. Or think of the potato blight in Ireland in the 1850s. A final example is in cheese making, where if *all* bacteria is destroyed, it makes it easier for a dangerous bacteria to spread like wildfire, since there is no "good" bacteria to keep it in check.
Homogenization definitely has it's advantages, simplifies the job of the purchaser (write one check), and computer support (just call DELL), training (just one manual) but it also has it's costs - no way would I say this makes for a more secure environment. It does indeed make the system more susceptible to mass failure, which seems to go against the Army/Government philosophy.
People joke about MS security being bad, but Linux is no better.
Hmm. I received three emails containing SoBig and looked at them while using Evolution running on Linux. Nothing happened. It didn't propagate. Linux seems more secure to me.
I thought the CIA or some similar US government agency was working to add security features to BSD? What happened to these? This wouldn't be the first time that one hand of the government didn't know what the other was doing, but what gives?
As a die hard OpenStep X user, I have to take issue with the idea that it runs hardly any software. I suppose that your comment is born of jealousy that OS X can run pretty much all of the software that Linux can as well as a fair proportion of commercial software that will remain beyond the reach of Linux users until someone gets enough mindshare to stabilize the libraries.
FUD aside, I do agree that governments should stay the hell away from any single source supplier like MS or Apple, no matter how good their wares are. It's simply not good enough to spend hundreds of millions, or even billions of tax payer's money on something that could disappear in a puff of smoke if the head bean-counter somewhere decides it's no longer economically viable to keep producing it.
Using open source doesn't neccessarily guarantee that a piece of software will continue to be made indefinitely, but it almost defintely does assure that somewhere out there is someone who knows enough about a given piece of software to patch security holes and misfeatures in the software, and it is quite likely that even if x86 hardware ceases to be available an open source OS will find new hardware to run on that can be introduced in the next upgrade cycle.
OS/X, Windows or Solaris = tied down
*BSD, *Linux* = free to move
Governments should be free to move rather than at the behest of corporations. Of course, the reality is quite different. Pester your local politician about change, I do.
I opened an email with Mozilla on Windows 2000 that contained a virus. But I didn't click on the attachment because I knew better.
Security through education.
Does this mean America will CRASH like Windows? I hope not!!!
Coders don't end comments with a semicolon. That would be a wasted keystroke.
I opened an email with Mozilla on Windows 2000 that contained a virus. But I didn't click on the attachment because I knew better.
Security through education.
I didn't have to worry about what I clicked on or knowing about the latest virus.
:)
Security through inherent security - it works for me.
Homeland Security??
These stupid bastards can't even manage Desktop Security..
The war is over, America has lost, move along now..
Blue screen of ... "DEATH" is gonna take on a whole new meaning...
So if I email you a random linux binary, you'll just run it on your machine?
Vote for Pedro
It doesn't matter which is more secure. The point is, neither is secure. And it is impossible to know which is more secure. You only know about the vulnerabilities that have been found,. Not the ones that haven't.
Vote for Pedro
I love how you just made up a bunch of sttistics.
Vote for Pedro
If they had decided to use Linux, the whole "Homeland Security" department might actually represent a threat to the American people.
So basically jobs that were in other departments and moved into homeland security are going to keep using the same software.
ooh. fascinating
You know, for all bush's talk about being anti-big government he seems almost opposite. I mean for one thing we have the largest federal deficit ever, and secondly this whole homeland security thing just about the most 'governmenty' way of securing everything? I mean, the first they did was create this massive bureaucracy, and they did it by reshuffling other smaller bureaucracy into one. So rather then spending time and effort trying to do a better job, they spend all this money and resources in merging all this crap together.
And that's on top of all the shuffling bush did to get rid of all the 'clintonistas' in government.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Besides Dell/Microsoft, who were the other bidders for the contract? Was the invitation to bid on the contract properly published? Was the functional description properly quarantined and then simultaneously distributed to interested bidders? Were non-disclosure procedures adhered to during the functional description phase? What contractor had the contract for publishing the functional description? What were the standards in their statement of work? How long were each of the bidding organizations given to examine the functional description and prepare their proposals? Besides Dell/Microsoft, who were the top finalists and how were their proposals different from Dell/Microsoft? Why were two closely related companies awarded the contract? Why didn't the unsuccessful bidders file protests in accordance with government contractacting procedures? In other words, was the execution of the functional description so perfect that there are no possiblee grounds to protest? --- What comes to mind is another (back in the 80's and 90's) big government computer contract where the functional description phase took over 4 years (and massive amounts of man hours), then the selection phase took 2-3 years. How can the process now be so fast and so perfect?
That's what MS says, yes. They don't often mention that a 12 year old with some rudimentary HTML knowledge can cripple a Windows system, or entire network, with a single email or web page view.
There's more incentive if you can compromise more machines. we're talking about known hacks, not total hacks.
Actually, there's more incentive when the crackers know that they're more likely to get through the security protocols in a system. With Windows, it's a lot easier to do this, than on Unix, Linux, or another Unix-alike.
Windows security is a set standard, and that standard is poor. Get through on one, and you're more than likely going to get through on a hundred. Since the *nix systems rely more on personalized security settings, there's no guarantee that you'll break into multiple systems due to admin security preferences.
Therefore, the fact that a bigger target ended up with reported security problems at the very least casts doubt on Linux security superiority. I'm not on an anti-Linux campaign, I'm just sick of people bashing MS security when Linux isn't any more reliable.
Consider what you just said. The larger target ended up with more reported security problems. Yet, EVERY DAY there are more and more Windows security problems found. Since MS made products are such a huge target, you'd think they'd have fixed this by now. Instead, security wasn't a priority until MS realized people were probably willing to pay for it.
The problem becomes that with the integration of all the MS-made products into Windows, any vunerablity in one product means there's vunerabilities in them all.
A main point with Windows security is that you either have to completely lock out the user, and make Windows all but unuesable; or you have to allow each user on the network access to be able to completely fux0r the network.
For example, if one jackass at my job installs a stupid hotbar.com bar into IE and Outlook, then ALL OF US ARE STUCK WITH IT (my work is dumb, and we're all on these damn Cirtix Windows CE powered terminals) until we get IT to find it and delete the goddamn thing from the main server. This has happened so many times, I can't even begin to count them. The only way to stop it, though, is to pretty much completely lock each individual user out of the network.
On a Unix-alike, however, each user could fux0r his or her own folder, and never even make a dent in the rest of the network.
Thursdæ
Is that while some uber-hackers could decode a heavily-encrypted file, with a custom cypering mechanism (I assume they could design something) etc etc.... pretty much anyone could be suspect for mail interception. Not that the postal service wouldn't be lambasted if such a thing happened, but isn't the "real world" still more succeptible to abuse than the IT world?
That's security through obscurity though...
fair.
//comments are for suckers
//coders read code
What you say!! I have nearly all my favourite Linux/Unix software compiled on the OSX box I'm typing this on. I think if you're going to push the Linux angle, attacking the competitions software availability is the last thing you should try.
YLFIOne god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Maybe they threw it the potoMac.
Quayle probably used a potatoeMac.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> the contract amounts to a six-year agreement covering 144,000 desktops,
> worth between $110 million and $120 million [gcn.com].
$110+ M$ / 144K Desktops is over $763/desktop
And this was the LOW bid?
OK, you mods obviously are smarter than I am, so will someone please tell me WHY WHY WHY my parent post was a Troll? I just want to know why?
Was it because I used too much profanity? Why should that matter, my point is still valid and well thought out. I used profanity to illustrate my frustration with this topic, and because there is no rule that says I can't. If you don't like what someone has to say, you should deal with it and not just say, "you're an idiot" and mod them down etc.
Was it because you didn't like it? You should not mod based on your opinion of my idea, that is not the point of the moderation system.
Was it because it was Offtopic? Well then why didn't you moderate it as such?
Trolls are posts written with the specific intention of just pissing people off for the fun of it (e.g. crapflods, racist posts, etc.) and the way I see it my post does not fall under this category. So I ask again, WHY?
Given the amount of offshoring Microsoft is doing of development in Hydrabad- there is NO way Microsoft software is secure enough to run DHS on. Same with Oracle, and all the other big names in software today- think of it this way, would you trust YOUR life to a programmer making $2.50/hr?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yeah, in fact they only just yesterday ported "America's Army" to Macintosh. Imagine an office block of people trying to defend our nation without that.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
So if I email you a random linux binary, you'll just run it on your machine?
Nope. And I don't have to worry about my email client being helpful and running it for me.
I had probably typed about 700 words in reply before my 3-year-old inadvertently hit the reset button on my computer. Here will be my shorter attempt:
There are no "Rules of Isolation" you assclown.
First, if there are no rules of isolation, than anyone can claim that any alleged pathogen exists based on arbitrary criteria. Second, it was a poor choice for you to use invective: how do you know now that I'm not going to resist you merely out of spite?
Third, I read the article that you posted, and I've found it rife with errors and flaws. I had started to list them before my son hit the reset button, and had gotten to #4. My question now is, do you want me to detail for you the flaws in the stupid article you've posted? I'm not sure if it's going to be useful becuase I don't think you're willing to challenge your own beliefs.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Uh - try again. The fact that those are liberal ideals does NOT mean that "All liberals aspire to be communists." There are several that do and several that don't, but you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative who believed in communism. The two are mutually exclusive, and the post I replied to was saying that our government made a communist one look liberal. I say to that, "No shit."
Addlepated - punk & metal
"Remember the Federal government is already
Microsoft's biggest customer."
I thought the Federal Government was now a _subsidiary_ of Microsoft?
Why the fuck does TCO get totally lost in computer world?
Compared to MS: If you buy $800 eMacs and have about zero virus, e-mail bongo-bingo-webmonkey adware spazware crap to deal with you will have lower TCO.
Compared to anything: If you have PCs that easily see windows, apple, and unix file shares you will will have lower TCO.
Compare to Linux: If you have a mature, easy-to-use GUI, and an almost identical to what they've been using Office Suite you will have lower TCO
Finally in regards to some concerns I saw voiced about what if Apple shut down and all the OS/X stuff was obsolete and obsolescence in general:
some people worry that anything will be obsolete in about 90 days.
some people violently scream that the C64 is still a viable platform.
some people figure that even in the unlikely event that Apple decided to shut down today, you could still get support, parts, software, etc. of OS X for a good while. And that you could probably easily migrate from OS X to either back to MS (stay on the office track) or over to Linux start installing apps like open office on the OS X desktops, and then migrate chunks of users to Linux PCs. In fact, this might even ease the transition (and related support calls, user hand-holding etc) and lead to, dare I say it, lower TCO.
I'm in that last group.
I mean c'mon folks. I'm not saying OS X is the only answer, or is the greatest or whatever. But you don't have to treat it like it's some OS Leper either. It can be a great alternative in business environments. Really. No, Really. No, no, really...