Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Loses Passport

nikkoslack copies and pastes: "Microsoft is abandoning one of its most controversial attempts to dominate the Internet after rival companies banded together to oppose it and consumers failed to embrace it. The Redmond software company said Wednesday it would stop trying to persuade Web sites to use its Passport service, which stores consumers' credit-card and other information as Internet users surf from place to place."

271 comments

  1. no trust... no passport by AlexTheBeast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody.

    That is the reason that the passport system failed. The general computer using public is not
    really tech-knowledgable... however, they do know that credit card numbers are to be protected.

    (Of course, they don't realize that all of this spyware s!ht they have installed could
    grab their numbers just as easily.)

    Hopefully, Microsoft will turn off
    that damn reminder balloon now.

    1. Re:no trust... no passport by turnstyle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody. That is the reason that the passport system failed. The general computer using public is not really tech-knowledgable."

      Your logic kind of cancels itself out. You are correct that the bulk of the public isn't tech-knowledgable -- and so I'd say that it's safe to say that they didn't avoid Microsoft's Passport for security reasons.

      (after all, do they avoid Microsoft's OSes for security reasons?)

      Passport mostly failed because those masses didn't "get it" and didn't care to.

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    2. Re:no trust... no passport by confusion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to wonder how concerned people are about losing their credit card info. My numbers have gotten out a few times, and it's little more than an inconvience of sending a letter to the credit card company. Banks these days partly compete on how quickly they'll "make it right" if you are the victim of fraud.

    3. Re:no trust... no passport by SenatorOrrinHatch · · Score: 1

      Post a reply if one of the first things you learned how to do with windows XP was edit the registry....

      --
      The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'
    4. Re:no trust... no passport by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody.

      I don't think it is just security - it is lack of trust on several levels.

      Personally,

      1) I do not trust Microsoft with my information

      2) I do not that Passport really added any value. From a privacy point of view, I could just as easily maintain multiple passwords on multiple sites with a password manager program - I use Roboform under both IE and Firefox.

      3) Companies did not want to hand over an important function of their business to a third party with little gain. Little value is added by letting a third party control this, yet it can provide huge leverage for MS in the future. I forget which year it was, but I recall Bill Gates saying that MS wanted to get a slice of every online transaction.

      4) I did not trust that the technology between the website and MS was safe. Some pages seemed to be unencrypted, etc. There did not seem to be any security guidelines required of sites that are Passport enableed - maybe there is, but it seemed lacking to me.

      5) I do not trust 'Privacy Policies' - companies can change them whenever they want and in certain instances (like TSA / Airlines) claim that the policies aren't binding, just PR. For me the best Privacy Policy is to not give out the data to the middleman in the first place.

    5. Re:no trust... no passport by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Who stores their credit-card information on passport? MSN Wallet only allows access to one store now - MSN. And the last time I heard of a security problem relating to MSN's wallet service was a few years ago (and that was basically just a cookie-stealing problem).

      MSN no longer pushes it and you'd be stupid to buy into it. I know of a more insecure service that I use to pay my bills.

    6. Re:no trust... no passport by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd say that Passport's failure has much more to do with web sites realizing that Passport really didn't offer them much, and cost them quite a bit.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:no trust... no passport by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I turned it off that baloon by using Spybot Search & Destroy. It has some handy tools in the Advanced mode, so you can disable start-up crap. There's no reason to manually go into the registry to do that anymore.

    8. Re:no trust... no passport by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      You pay your bills on windows, don't you?

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    9. Re:no trust... no passport by hugesmile · · Score: 3, Informative
      A friend of mine - yeah, that's it.. a friend - runs a website that has a registration process, whereby people create their own accounts and passwords. To my amazement (my friend tells me that...) the vast majority of users sign up and provide an email address and password that is obviously the same password used elsewhere around the internet. With this password, my friend can easily retrieve / delete people's email, access some paypal accounts, and sign into other common services around the net.

      Good thing my friend is ethical! I can't emphasize enough - USE A DIFFRENT PASSWORD FOR EACH WEBSITE, such that no DB Admin from one site can guess your other passwords!

    10. Re:no trust... no passport by Foofoobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually there are multiple reasons why the public didn't get it and it boils down to the public and the industry avoiding it because of the following:

      1. monopoly - nobody wants to give all their id's to one company to control

      2. lack of understanding - why do I need one company to have my login and password to use on all these sites when I, Joe Average, already use the same login and password on all these sites?

      3. security - Seriously, would you trust them with your login, pass, personal info and credit card information when they have had such a flawless run on security?

      Because of one of those three things (or a combination thereof), it failed. These are (oddly enough) the same stumbling blocks that continue to stump them with all product releases. In some ways, it would have been in Microsoft's best interest's to split the company either via the courts or themselves; in that sense, the baggage of the company would not follow every product. By splitting the company, the could effectively put a new face behind each branch and each child company would have a chance to remarket themselves and their products.

      On a negative, this would make it so that they would then have to compete more fairly in an open market and thus would cost them a share. It's give and take and right now no matter how you cut it microsoft loses.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    11. Re:no trust... no passport by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1
    12. Re:no trust... no passport by RupW · · Score: 1

      3) Companies did not want to hand over an important function of their business to a third party with little gain.

      Huh? It's just outsourcing your basic account management. Lots of companies outsource stuff for many different reasons. The idea is you also get a ubiquitous UI so it's easy and reassuring for anyone who wants to use it - that has value too.

    13. Re:no trust... no passport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Post a reply if one of the first things you learned how to do with windows XP was edit the registry....

      Most of us learned it with NT, or possibly Win9x. I may be the only one who did registry editing on Win3.1, but the registry was a pretty different beast then.

    14. Re:no trust... no passport by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      On that same theme, a message for web site admins: don't store plaintext passwords in your database! You should be storing a hash of the password, and never be able to guess somebody's password just because they have an account on your site.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    15. Re:no trust... no passport by downhole · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do use the same user/pass combos for most of the sites I go to, mostly forums and things like that. But I have different combos for the important accounts. All my e-mail accounts and credit card/bank account sites have different ones, and the admin pass for my OS X computer is different too.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    16. Re:no trust... no passport by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your friend should be storing passwords with one-way encryption such that he couldn't tell what they are anyway. Anything else is just asking to be hacked, have the passwords stolen then be liable for all the mischief that gets caused.

      Rich

    17. Re:no trust... no passport by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I'll go you one better. I remember reading about the registry when Windows 95 was being made. Apparently there was consideration at Microsoft that they wouldn't even let you edit the thing. If that was so, at least they came to their senses, because even then I knew that the first thing to do when running a new Windows 3 program was to edit the INI file and change all the stupid defaults.

      Nowadays there's so much garbage in the registry you can't understand or inspect it all, but it's still necessary to edit it, just to do some obvious things.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:no trust... no passport by Sique · · Score: 1
      2. lack of understanding - why do I need one company to have my login and password to use on all these sites when I, Joe Average, already use the same login and password on all these sites?


      I think this covers about 95% of all arguments which don't include the pure ignorance of Passport.
      Joe Average User doesn't even know that he has with registering to MSN Messenger or Hotmail a kind of universal login which also works for eBay and other Passport affiliated sites. So he chooses j.a.user everytime he has to register a user.
      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    19. Re:no trust... no passport by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right. All these people talking about security don't get it. There was no user base for passport, so sites aren't going to bother with it, and if sites don't require it people are never going to sign up. It's one more thing to remember when you have to use your credit card for other sites anyway. It's not that people cared a lot about security--they just didn't care at all about that sort of thing. MS may have underdedicated resources to marketing it, or tried to charge too much for it, making adoption seem completely unadvantageous.

    20. Re:no trust... no passport by babyrat · · Score: 1

      Are you willing to bet $10,000 (or whatever your card limit happens to be) that it will be that easy next time???

    21. Re:no trust... no passport by kosh · · Score: 0

      (after all, do they avoid Microsoft's OSes for security reasons?)

      after all CAN they avoid Microsoft's OSes for security reasons? The non-tech-knowledgable crowd that is?

    22. Re:no trust... no passport by reallocate · · Score: 1

      I'd amend your statement to read:

      Consumers don't believe the IT industry focuses on their security.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    23. Re:no trust... no passport by farble1670 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      These are (oddly enough) the same stumbling blocks that continue to stump them with all product releases

      compared to what? MS is the most successful software company ever, period. if you somehow think that MS is faltering, or losing market share, or doesn't know what's going on in any way you need to read something other than /. the fact that passport was abandoned means nothing. every successful company makes forays into new territory and fails some of the time.

      all of this BS about FF being poised to overtake IE is an example. you think MS was taken by surprise? MS could easily implement everything that FF does and has. FF is nothing to them. the vast majority of internet users don't even understand that there are different browsers.

    24. Re:no trust... no passport by smartdreamer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think AlexTheBeast is right and what you tell about is logic is wrong.

      First,

      Passport mostly failed because those masses didn't "get it" and didn't care to.
      The masses surely care... as much as they can. Many good reasons why it really failed is explained in other commentaries.

      Second, and that is what I want to underline, is your analogy with MS OSes / Passport and it's acceptance from public.

      (after all, do they avoid Microsoft's OSes for security reasons?)
      Many reasons can be given to explain why MS took such a big part of the desktop. Mostly by opportunity, good business, powerful marketing, anti-competitive tactics, etc.

      The customer, the one with no computer knowlegde, faced a monopoly, he had no choice. And he would probably have followed the same path if he was presented alternatives. (Unix never focused on jo six-pack ; Mac did well but was more expensive). Until now, MS was the only choice for Mr. Customer.

      But the real difference, is that computer user never thought security was an issue. Computers are presented like a calculator, a typewriter, a gaming station, an Internet access point. Do you care about security for your calculator, your old typewriter, your gamecube or public Internet access points? Absolutly not! Computers are not advertised for what they really are. They are many orders more complex than every other accessory a customer faced before. Never before, he had to care of security, performance, backups, compatibility, stability, interoperability, license issues, etc.

      If there is a thing all customers know is that money, credit card for instance, as well as personal information were always something to be careful of. That has be thougth for many years.

      Moreover, it is not because customers use a monopoly's product that they are satisfied with this product and this monopoly. Some will get a far as they can from MS.

      So you can not pretend that customers are facing the same choice. In fact the parallele cannot be done bitween the two because one choice (passport) is made knowing the other's conseqences (MS OSes).

    25. Re:no trust... no passport by dickens · · Score: 1

      Even assuming that web site admins store their passwords hashed, how long can that hash hold up to a brute-force attack from a 3Ghz+ system?

    26. Re:no trust... no passport by megarich · · Score: 1

      Though your right its safer to have 2 diff passwords but you know how many sites I'm registered to? I can think of 15 and to come up with diff passwords for each and every site is just gonna mess you up unless you want to be a show off and memorize but who wants to do that. what i do on a piece of paper right down my username and a password hint for each site.

      may not sound secure but 1)password hints that only i know no one else. 2) i cant even read my own hand writing sometimes let alone other people so you can get it and not understand it :)

    27. Re:no trust... no passport by happyemoticon · · Score: 2, Informative
      The customer, the one with no computer knowlegde, faced a monopoly, he had no choice. And he would probably have followed the same path if he was presented alternatives. (Unix never focused on jo six-pack; Mac did well but was more expensive). Until now, MS was the only choice for Mr. Customer.

      I would chalk up another thing: Most people 25-40 barely know what an operating system is, let alone know it is replaceable. Most people 14-25 aren't that far ahead. Since I've been using computers since I was 8, this comes as a shock to me, and I think it's something often overlooked by geeks.

      For example, even a rather computer-literate librarian I know thinks, "You buy a PC, it runs Windows; you buy a Mac, it runs MacOS; you buy a Sun server, it runs SunOS." When I started talking about FreeBSD and Linux, she looked at me as if I was talking about turning her Vespa into a dishwasher. They don't get that PCs are designed to be open, and all you have to do is write GRUB to the MBR, and it WILL boot up. This is one of the biggest challenges facing the open-source movement. Look at the sticker on my girlfriend's Dell: "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP," which in many respects is a fallacy, but customers often interpret it as "Designed ONLY for Microsoft."

      Computers are presented like a calculator, a typewriter, a gaming station, an Internet access point.

      Absolutely. (If you weren't a geek) you wouldn't think of an "operating system" with respect to your calculator, would you? How many computer users do you think know how an IC works? They're still operating from the abacus metaphor. And http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html has some good stuff in it regrading this kind of false metaphor.

    28. Re:no trust... no passport by archen · · Score: 1

      I'd say months to a few years most likely. But with the sort of passwords that most people choose, we're probably talking a couple hours. (but that's per password)

    29. Re:no trust... no passport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "MS could easily implement everything that FF does..."

      Which begs the question...Why haven't they?

    30. Re:no trust... no passport by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I don't think it was lack of consumer interest that did it. Most consumers would just accept it as the way they have to log in to their favourite sites if it was there. No, the reason was that Microsoft intended it to be an internet wide standard, but never actually persuaded more than 50 web-sites to use it. It was the web-site owners who couldn't see the benefit and/or didn't trust Microsoft and/or didn't see why they should pay for it.

    31. Re:no trust... no passport by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      "
      2. lack of understanding - why do I need one company to have my login and password to use on all these sites when I, Joe Average, already use the same login and password on all these sites?
      "

      That was actually the best part of passport. I'd rather see someone figure out a way to do RSA (or even pgp) based public key authentication to websites.
      Instead of authing with one company, you'd auth with your local private key, then just upload your public key to any website you want to use it at. Then as soon as you login to the key you'd be able to instantly login to any website that has your priv key.

      Maybe add a http header like X-KEY: Request; that the server sends, which pops up a box on the client side asking if you want to send your key to the server, at which point you either say no and ignore the requests, or say yes and have X-KEY: 12378479028786e87a876a86868a8h or whatever sent as your X-KEY: header.

      Before anyone wants to debate the security of this, Public key authentication is used by pretty much any admin responsible for more than 5 computers. We trust it with your data, so you should to.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    32. Re:no trust... no passport by sootman · · Score: 1

      Hell, I just don't trust them to keep the damn domain active. :-) (Original slashdot coverage here.)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    33. Re:no trust... no passport by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      (after all, do they avoid Microsoft's OSes for security reasons?)

      No, but they don't use them because they think they are secure, either.

      It's a tradeoff for the general public IMHO. They don't think Windows is secure, but they want a computer to function. I think many still operate under misconception gained from various FUD campaigns of years passed. Ideas like...

      You can't get on the Internet with a Macintosh.
      Linux is written by Hackers.
      You can't get Microsoft Office on Mac.
      There's no support for Open Source software.
      There are no other operating systems besides Windows.
      You have to be using Windows to use most digital camrass, printers, ect.
      There is no software for Linux.
      (I heard that one the other day).

      Plus the fact most people buy PC's (because of price) and practically all PC come with Windows on them. Why change what works, they say.

    34. Re:no trust... no passport by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      My wife - with respect to operating systems a rather non-tech-knowledgable person - doesn't seem to have any problems whatsoever with Linux, at least as far as text editing, web surfing, listening to our MP3-ized CDs and e-mail goes. The only reason she ever boots to windows is the lack of a specific peace of software she can't do without.

      This doesn't mean she'd necessarily be able to install a linux distro from scratch. Of course, she'd most probably have exactly the same trouble installing Windows on a clean box.

    35. Re:no trust... no passport by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

      The reason passport duidn't succeed is because the product sucked. Period.

      The passport SDK (I worked with 2.5) was a complete joke when trying to set up site to site navigation.

      Let's talk about the dev process. You get the SDK and a test passport key. You Go to the passport admin site and enter the information of the site (urls and such). Then you WAIT 24 HOURS!

      Then you develope the site. Everytime your schema changes, you have to update the passport admin site AND WAIT 24 HOURS for your changes to appear!

      Once your site is done and you need a real passport key, you have to submit your site for passport compliance AND WAIT 7 DAYS! Better hope you pass, or you will have to resubmit AND WAIT ANOTHER SEVEN DAYS!

      Then you have to register for a production passport key, WAIT ANOTHER 24 HOURS, dl the key, install it, and pray to god it works.

      Wanna change your domain name? You can't, without going through the whole frickin process over again. Want support? Oh well, the PST team left Sammamish last year, and has been replaced with a help desk in India.

      Want to use SSL on your site? Better disable it for your logon and logoff pages (at least any content you use for those pages), else it will break.

      Did the person who registered and DL'd the prod key leave your company? Lose your key? Oh well, if he didn't assign you as the primary key user, your sites are now UNDEPLOYABLE, as you can't get a new key.

      How many different ways does a porduct have to suck before people stop using it?

      BBH
      1.5 Years in PPort hell.

    36. Re:no trust... no passport by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that it cost way too much money to implement on any sites! Nobody is going to implement your fancy password manager if it costs thousands of dollars to do so.

    37. Re:no trust... no passport by mrawl · · Score: 1

      Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody.

      That's right, and hence I bet the real reason is liability. They don't trust themselves to keep it secure, and if it was to be compromised too badly imagine the consequences for them...

    38. Re:no trust... no passport by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      I'll go you one better. I remember reading about the registry when Windows 95 was being made. Apparently there was consideration at Microsoft that they wouldn't even let you edit the thing. If that was so, at least they came to their senses, because even then I knew that the first thing to do when running a new Windows 3 program was to edit the INI file and change all the stupid defaults.

      I'll go you one better: the hard-coded 64K limit on the size of the Win95 registry. Typical MS foresight. It grows to 64K because everything including Visual Basic is writing to it, and things just stop working until you reinstall the OS.

    39. Re:no trust... no passport by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of install.bat which came with most software, and usually needed to be fixed before running it. Everyone always assumed their stuff should go in the root of the C:\ drive... or worse, dumped right in the Windows directory. In fact, that still happens.

      "C:\Program Files" was a great idea, except for the fact that the morons who decided to include a space in the name were the same morons that neglected to support embedded spaces in file names consistently. I would, however, personally like to dangle spit in the face of whoever thought it was a clever thing to prefix every directory name with "My ". That has got to be the lamest decision ever made since Windows 95 defaulted to not displaying file extensions... something that's STILL default almost 10 years later, despite being, IMO, the absolutely stupidest UI decision in the history of computing.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    40. Re:no trust... no passport by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
      a kind of universal login which also works for eBay and other Passport affiliated sites.

      You haven't been on eBay in the last few days, have you? Passport won't work there soon...

    41. Re:no trust... no passport by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      I always thought "Programs" would have been a perfectly suitable option. Fits in 8.3. No space. Obvious. Easy to type e.g from command line. Some people used it already. "Program Files" seems like committee decision making at it's worst.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    42. Re:no trust... no passport by Sique · · Score: 1

      No wonder if Passport gets discontinued ;) That's the whole point of the article.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    43. Re:no trust... no passport by Coyoteold1 · · Score: 1

      I can think of all sorts of reasons that _I_ would not use Passport.

      But I have the suspicion that you are right. That it's not that most people were educated about the subject, or carefully considered the dangers versus benefits. I suspect that it was largely that they didn't "get it". I so suspect that at least some of it was that they didn't trust it, also... for at least some people.

      Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I suspect that the main reason this thing didn't catch on had less to do with consumer awareness and concern, than with lack of knowledge, poor marketing, and that it was yet another fiddly thing for people to have to sign on to.

      An idea being bad or unhealthy is, sadly, is often not the reason it's discarded. I think it's safe to say that people buy stupid, dangerous, unhealthy, or useless products all the time, and use useless, insecure internet products all the time.

      Whether an idea is good or bad has less to do with how well it sells than how catchy it is, how infectious it is, how well-marketed it is.

      People sell bad ideas all the time.

    44. Re:no trust... no passport by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      Good for you. Sheesh, it doesn't take much for something to be modded as interesting on slashdot... ;)

    45. Re:no trust... no passport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks like passport will persist for ms related stuff (hotmail msn messenger other ms sites) but won't be pushed to third partys anymore

      this is not the complete death of passport

    46. Re:no trust... no passport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      working with ms is a dangerous game

      its like working with wal-mart you can get massive gains but you can also be massively screwed by them and there is little you can do about it.

    47. Re:no trust... no passport by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      Well fact is that they have been losing market share in alot of ways; Firefox has been cutting into their market share as has Linux, MySQL, Apache, OpenOffice. The list goes on and on.

      Just about every study out there shows them losing ground in just about every front. To stand there and blindly think that they are still gaining is ignorant; even investors have repeatedly stated that their stock has stagnated and suggested against buying it.

      You still think they are doing fine? Well how about two anti trust judgements against them? Does that sound fine?

      Honestly, I'm a realist. They have such a lock on the desktop that they will remain dominant for a long time to come... but the server market is another thing entirely. And as a result of the server market moving towards alternatives, you can thusly say goodbye to .NET development on anything but the desktop (regardless of MONO or other projects).

      Linux on the desktop is a feint to split Microsoft's focus and it's a good feint at that forcing Microsoft to split resources and perogatives. Microsoft needs to stay focused on the desktop and start building apps for a NIX based server environment today or else lose out entirely to an industry that wants reliability and stability in a cheaper product.

      Until they realize this, the demand for their products will continue to decline... albeit slowly but it still is a decline nonetheless. And when you are a company of that size, any decline is a huge drain on the gorilla.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    48. Re:no trust... no passport by Technician · · Score: 1

      (Of course, they don't realize that all of this spyware s!ht they have installed could
      grab their numbers just as easily.)


      It can't grab any information I haven't provided it. I've never entered my CC number online, or offline. It isn't there to be compromised. I shop online, but reputable businesses have a physical presence. Many take phone orders and other payment options. A business with just a webpage and takes only PayPa1 doesn't get my business. I look for something more established than that. With a wire transfer I can lose the amount of the transfer, but not more. There is no chance of having to fight re-occuring charges to a CC or debit card. I prefer it that way. It costs more, but the risk is much less.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    49. Re:no trust... no passport by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Good thing my friend is ethical! I can't emphasize enough - USE A DIFFRENT PASSWORD FOR EACH WEBSITE, such that no DB Admin from one site can guess your other passwords!

      Or do as I do:

      1 password for the highest security sites including half of my financial sites.

      1 password for my other financial sites and a few trusted but otherwise high security sites

      1 weak (dictionary) password for things like Slashdot, where if someone breaks in and steals it, it is not the end of the world (woohoo, you steal my password, you can log into NYT.com with my account!!!)

      Then occasionally I add other passwors for other sites. For example, my primary bank has a different password, as does my PayPal account. This way, I can still have passwords I can remember and still have a manageable number of them without jeopardizing my most important info.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  2. Passport's failure by turnstyle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think "rival companies banded together to oppose it" was far less relevant than "consumers failed to embrace it"

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:Passport's failure by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

      Microsoft was way to presumptuous thinking that consumers would allow theirselves to be stuck with another microsoft product. Sure most people use windows but that's because they're forced to.

    2. Re:Passport's failure by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would tend to think that "Consumers didn't know it was there" would also be a major part of it. You can't "embrace" what you don't know about.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Passport's failure by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely. I know a lot of people who told me that they thought it was a cool idea (this was obviously not recent) until I said, "You mean the same Microsoft that announces exploits in their operating systems on a weekly basis? You mean the Microsoft that had its Hotmail servers broken into a few times? Is that the Microsoft that you want to trust with your credit card numbers?"

      The most common reply was "Oh. I never thought of that."

      I don't know that I necessarily believe that Microsoft has never been concerned about security. I just don't think that they ever gave it a priority until recently.

      Personally, I think that the reason why it failed was more that peole just don't trust storing such critical information in a single place. Convenience is fine, but the increase in Internet fraud, phishing, viruses/virii, and the like are increasing andmore importantly are being reported to the public. Let's not forget the frequent reports of how some major network site comewhere was broken into.

      I agree that rival companies banding together was not relevant. I think that Passport's demise is due more and more news about the lack of security in Microsoft products and on the web in general. I find it difficult to believe that any kind of Passport-like service would work any time soon.

      --
      The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
    4. Re:Passport's failure by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Why do consumers need to embrace a service they do not know of (or care about) the internal workings of? Especially when they have no alternative.

      Most consumers don't care about how they login to a service, it's just a form for them to fill in. If the form changes because that site switched to using another form of authentication, they have no choice but to switch with it.

    5. Re:Passport's failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. Just two months ago I walked away from a ticket I was trying to reserve (probably on Expedia) because the site was insisting I use a Passport login.

      I just clicked over to a competing site and got the same flight, same fare, with none of the hassle.

    6. Re:Passport's failure by isecore · · Score: 1

      Right.

      Of course the bajillions of hotmail-users never noticed that it said "Microsoft .net Passport" about a thousand times when they logged into their mail to get some spam.

      Or that it said the same thing on just about any website that was even remotely owned/operated by Microsoft.

      Bull fucking shit, is my opinion. People didn't buy into it because they never trusted it.

      --
      I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    7. Re:Passport's failure by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      My point, though, is that it wasn't just that, like you, people didn't want to use it. It was that a lot of people didn't know it was there. They (Microsoft) never got the level of brand awareness or name recognition with Passport then with their other products.

      I mean, I have customers who can't put put a floppy disk in the correct drive (they put it in the ZIP drive bay) but they know of MS Word.

      It's about getting the depth of name recognition. They just never got it with Passport. And whether that is because not enough websites wanted to use it, or they advertised it poorly, or whatever, it just never got to the same customer base that uses Word or Powerpoint on a daily basis.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    8. Re:Passport's failure by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 1
      I don't know that I necessarily believe that Microsoft has never been concerned about security. I just don't think that they ever gave it a priority until recently.

      Actually, I don't think they really gave it any priority. They just wanted to ship their next product and have it Just Work(tm) for the end-user. No configuring crap, just do it like the last windows release.

      Microsoft didn't become all that concerned about the security of their products until Windows security became a major selling point for Linux/BSD. We all know that *nix is spanking them in the server market, and Billy doesn't like that.

    9. Re:Passport's failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have customers who can't put put a floppy disk in the correct drive (they put it in the ZIP drive bay)

      You still see zip drive bays around? I thought USB thumb drives pretty much killed zip drives good and dead. Faster, more reliable, and amazingly portable, since you have the drive itself with you. Iomega's last quality product was the Bernoulli.

    10. Re:Passport's failure by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how many of them ignored it every time they saw it? And how many of those Hotmail accounts were created and used solely as throw-away e-mail accounts for any other page that required an e-mail address? Or for a spam-bot? Or for any other reason to create and never actually sign in?

      Do you even look at the advertisements that are put in your way on the way to whatever article is the reference in a Slashdot story? When was the last time you paid attention to a commercial on TV?

      Yes, it wasn't trusted by people. Yes, it wasn't trusted by web-site based businesses. But even with SP2, XP still has security holes. And there are a number of problems with Word, Powerpoint, and every other Microsoft product. And yet people use and trust those products to do what they are supposed to. Because they were marketed correctly. Passport wasn't marketed correctly. It was barely marketed at all.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    11. Re:Passport's failure by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      We lease computers from Dell, for one thing. For another, I work at a FedExKinko's, so we pretty much have to support floppy disks, ZIP disks, the USB thumb drives, CDs, compact flash cards, etc.

      Several of our customers only use ZIP disks.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    12. Re:Passport's failure by Richard+Frost · · Score: 1

      I think "rival companies banded together to oppose it" was far less relevant than "consumers failed to embrace it"

      Yes, but that doesn't look so good on shareholder's reports, now does it? 'Cause if rival companies blocked it, well, that's business, but if the customers didn't like it, then that doesn't look so good for MSFT.

    13. Re:Passport's failure by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Microsoft was way to presumptuous thinking that consumers would allow theirselves to be stuck with another microsoft product. Sure most people use windows but that's because they're forced to.

      I think we just lucked out on this one. MOST people would happily embrace the blue butterfly when they know it stops little Johnny's web search for the Bikini Islands. It still amazes me that a software company would use a bug as a logo and be proud of it.

  3. It's often implemented without https by HawkinsD · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thank God.

    I realize that it's probably the fault of the implementer, and not the technology, but I can't tell you how many times I've supplied my password to a page that was rendered without https.

    So I had to get two Passport accounts: one for secure things, like my MSDN account, and one for things that I didn't care who stole my password for.

    --
    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
    1. Re:It's often implemented without https by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Informative

      Often the page is sent in the clear, but the submit action is an https link.

      Not that I think that such behaviour is good practice... just that it might very well have been encrypted.

    2. Re:It's often implemented without https by RupW · · Score: 1

      I realize that it's probably the fault of the implementer, and not the technology, but I can't tell you how many times I've supplied my password to a page that was rendered without https.

      Huh? All logins are processed, AFAIK, are processed through passport.net on a secure page. The site you want to login to redirects you to a secure page on passport.net - with some branding from the original site - which redirects you back once you've logged it.

    3. Re:It's often implemented without https by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Rendered without HTTPS
      The page security isn't what's important. The page you view has no implication to security.

      It's the security of the FORM that's important. The form POST/GET needs to be encrypted.

      That said, in my career I have made any input page HTTPS so that users would be comfortable. It's just not worth explaining this distinction to everyone -- it's not.

    4. Re:It's often implemented without https by dmh20002 · · Score: 1

      If the input page is not secured, then the bad guys know what you are doing, giving them a leg up.

      maybe more importantly, you can't check the certificate of who you are talking to until you submit. then you are screwed if something is wrong. Sure, sure if the domain is microsoft.com or amazon.com you might feel ok (or not, given that this is slashdot), but not all domains are so well known.

    5. Re:It's often implemented without https by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, submitting an action to https still means you can see it you know. if I submit a form with informatin to https://blah.com/secret.cgi?this=password;that=por no I can still see where that trafic went because the ssl transaction hasn't started yet.

    6. Re:It's often implemented without https by Disco+Stu · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people think this is true? Even though that's what it may look like from your browser, that's not how it works. The way it's implemented, your browser negotiates the SSL session and then submits a "GET secret.cgi?this=password;that=por" request. The realy problem with using sensitive data in "GET" requests is referrer attacks. If the resultant page has a link to an external site, and you click it, your full request string "...blah.com/secred.cgi?this=password..." will be available to that external site and will go over in the clear to that site (assuming it isn't over TLS).

    7. Re:It's often implemented without https by Dwonis · · Score: 2, Informative
      if I submit a form with informatin to https://blah.com/secret.cgi?this=password;that=por no I can still see where that trafic went because the ssl transaction hasn't started yet.

      I think you're thinking of the subject line of encrypted email messages. In HTTPS, SSL negotiation happens as soon as the TCP connection is established, i.e. before requests are made.

  4. A few years down the line ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    /tinfoil hat on

    Microsoft will embrace the Libery Alliance's Passport service. Windows users will embrace it too because it will be ported into the kernel.

    Few years later, Microsoft will modify the protocol to extend it, adding their own proprietary features. Windows users have no choice but to embrace it.

    Microsoft will then lock out competitors from using their new version of Passport. They might even patent parts of it. In the end they will end up dominating the Passport buisness anyways.

    /tinfoil hat off

    1. Re:A few years down the line ... by savagedome · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree. However I have one question. Why did you take the tinfoil hat off?

    2. Re:A few years down the line ... by ahsile · · Score: 1

      An interesting vision into the future. Definately a possibility from the way microsoft has acted in the past. (For example the "caller id" technology)

    3. Re:A few years down the line ... by blowdart · · Score: 1
      So MS abandons one single sign on service which was used for very few sites to one that's used on even less sites?

      Hurrah for consumer choice!

    4. Re:A few years down the line ... by finkployd · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't really know much about liberty alliance do you? It is a federated identity management service, using OASIS's SAML to assert authentication status and attributes, not like passport's "store everything in one place" service.

      It is also licensed such that MS cannot modify or extend it in a way that is interoperable with the spec (which would make it useless anyway).

      Finkployd

    5. Re:A few years down the line ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. Once and for all:

      What do people refer to when they say "tin-foil hat"? Seriously, I don't know, and I found no definition of that jargon.

    6. Re:A few years down the line ... by louarnkoz · · Score: 1
      There are many different voices coming out of Microsoft. One of the most interesting opinion is that of Kim Cameron, Microsoft's architect for identity. He publishes an Identity Weblog. Kim's "laws of identity" are all about privacy and minimal disclosure.

      Kim pushes an Infocard Project that would enable any variation of identity management, from centralised servers to federation of entreprise servers or peer-to-peer systems. Whether such grand vision will make it into future Microsoft products is indeed anyone's guess...

    7. Re:A few years down the line ... by RupW · · Score: 1

      What do people refer to when they say "tin-foil hat"? Seriously, I don't know, and I found no definition of that jargon.

      The idea is that if you wear tinfoil on your head you won't be susceptible to the mind-control waves transmitted by the government. Or something like that.

      Hence it's associated with screwball conspiracy theories.

      I'd be surprised if it wasn't in Wikipedia but I can't get to the site right now (!).

    8. Re:A few years down the line ... by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      You can take your tinfoil hat off once you're inside your tinfoil room.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    9. Re:A few years down the line ... by RupW · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do people refer to when they say "tin-foil hat"? Seriously, I don't know, and I found no definition of that jargon.

      Tin-foil hat article in Wikipedia.

    10. Re:A few years down the line ... by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

      > not like passport's "store everything in one place" service.

      Passport the API can be federated. It is in effect the .NET replacement for NTLM. Passport the service is what's going away or at least becoming irrelevant. Liberty Alliance the service doesn't even exist. Even its own members aren't using it.

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    11. Re:A few years down the line ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Would you care to explain what .NET is? One day it is onething the next day it is everything. The next thing we will hear is .NET is the OS. ,NET is nothing more than Java with few more features, polished enhancements, and improved development tools. Yet we consistantly hear everything from MS is .NET. .NET is nothing new other than a marketing buzzword.

    12. Re:A few years down the line ... by rewt66 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is also licensed such that MS cannot modify or extend it in a way that is interoperable with the spec (which would make it useless anyway).

      So was Java...

    13. Re:A few years down the line ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is also licensed such that MS cannot modify or extend it

      Since when does M$ obey laws, regulations? XML anyone?

    14. Re:A few years down the line ... by downbad · · Score: 1

      Lame.

    15. Re:A few years down the line ... by ankhank · · Score: 1

      You line your hat with aluminum foil, making a parabolic reflector.

      Then, you hold your cell phone up against your head and hold the transmit button down for a while.

      The result focuses the microwave radiation at a point somewhere along the midline of your brain.

      Once you've sufficiently damaged the midline, you effectively have two brains so you're twice as smart, and your left hand doesn't know what your right hand as doing -- a security precaution that's favored by large corporations everywhere.

    16. Re:A few years down the line ... by snorklewacker · · Score: 1
      Well, it's never been Java, unless you view everything from the distortion of Sun's claim that they invented bytecode. .NET includes

      1. The CLR
      2. Web services


      And that's pretty much it. Passport falls under the very nebulous and overly inclusive #2. Web services was initially their biggest push, and included "services" like Hailstorm, which nobody including yours truly actually wanted.

      And yes, pretty much everything coming out of MS gets tied to .NET. It's practically the new Windows, but at any rate, the CLR is certainly slated to replace the Win32 API (not that it'll ever go away, given that you can still write DOS apps, int13h and all)

      Try looking at MSDN sometime, it might prove illuminating.
      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    17. Re:A few years down the line ... by finkployd · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but then I am confused why MS (and IBM) worked to create WS-Federation.

      Finkployd

  5. Wrong persuasion method... by Seabass55 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "would stop trying to persuade Web sites"

    Perhaps if they did this mafia style with a hammer and some other blunt objects they would have better sucess

    1. Re:Wrong persuasion method... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, the old sale-by-trauma methodology.
      Yes, the MS Office sales dep. have used that method with success in the past.

    2. Re:Wrong persuasion method... by peawee03 · · Score: 1

      Dude, dude, dude! Get in the 21st century! They're not called "hammers" or "blunt objects" anymore. They're called "Lawyers" and "Laws & the political process" these days. Jeesh.

      --
      I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
    3. Re:Wrong persuasion method... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Homer agrees to sell his computer company to Bill Gates.

      "OK boys, "buy them out""

      His thugs smash things.

      "What, you think I got rich by giving people money?"

    4. Re:Wrong persuasion method... by Epistax · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to troll, and maybe this was a typo, but the ditty I heard on the Simspons really worked for me.

      To the theme of the army march cadence a la "I don't know but I've been told, the Parthenon is mighty old...." . "S-u-c-c-e-s-s, that is how you spell success" I haven't screwed up that word since.

  6. Not Totally Abandoned by p0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft will still use Passport for MSN services like Hotmail.

    --
    This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Not Totally Abandoned by spac3manspiff · · Score: 1

      so basically Passport is another name for Hotmail

    2. Re:Not Totally Abandoned by Neophytus · · Score: 1

      And msn messenger.

    3. Re:Not Totally Abandoned by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      And every other service listed at http://special.msn.com/ (what a great name)

    4. Re:Not Totally Abandoned by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      And msn messenger.

      And Windows Messenger

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    5. Re:Not Totally Abandoned by glorf · · Score: 1

      MSN Gaming Zone still uses passport, and it has subscription games that require a credit card. Anyone who wants to get a Microsoft certification or use the special web sites available to certified people needs a passport. And that requires that you have real info in it so your certifcation has your real name and your nice little pin and wallet card etc. arrive at the correct address.

    6. Re:Not Totally Abandoned by archen · · Score: 1

      I recall talking to a MS rep about something and he indicated that all the backend MS services for things like MSN, Hotmail, and other MS sites is handled via passport. While MS may have decided not to push passport on others, they are heavily entrenched in it at this point, and I doubt they're going to change their infastructure either.

  7. Ebay by ViolentGreen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps Ebay's decision to drop it was the final straw.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    1. Re:Ebay by Quarters · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Microsoft based their business on being reactive to eBay they'd have stopped development of Windows Server products by now. More likely the eBay decision was made because Microsoft let them know they were dropping support for it.

    2. Re:Ebay by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      It's not just eBay. eBay was just the latest to drop it.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    3. Re:Ebay by Technician · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Ebay dropped it because lots of people including myself didn't want the third party involved in a transaction. I wouldn't sign up for an Ebay account simply because I refuse to have a Passport account.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  8. Cannot trust Microsoft by totallygeek · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody.


    They do, and they market that very well. I recently saw an eighteen-wheeler pull through major cities showcasing Microsoft security products. Every business owner I spoke with that has had considerable expenses due to Microsoft's insecurities was amazed at their products. What I find most interesting is when a peer of mine went to a Microsoft propaganda seminar, they suggested the purchase of a Linksys router/firewall to place before their high-dollar security system. When asked what OS this equipment used, the speaker proudly mentioned Linux.


    The problem is age-old though. Viruses and Trojans would seemingly not exist without Microsoft. Certainly, there would not be a need for anti-virus products because the numbers would be manageable enough via infrequent patching. Therefore, Microsoft is the problem.

    1. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Viruses & trojans & root kits would exist without microsoft.

      of course you would have more than 48 hours between the time a bug is found, and when the exploit starts working around the Net.

      Also the patches would come out as fast as the exploits are noticed. You also would have responsible programers, and the Apps that breaks are the ones that gets fixed, unlike Windows were if your game doesn't work anymore, MSFT just patches around so that the game works again.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Viruses and Trojans would seemingly not exist without Microsoft.

      What does the link have to do with the subject?

      And viruses and trojans have existed before MS and the will long after. Its a computer systems issue not an MS one.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    3. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And viruses and trojans have existed before MS and the will long after. Its a computer systems issue not an MS one.


      Yes, but not to the level of needing an entire anti-virus industry.

    4. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by -kertrats- · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The link in your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

      Either way, viruses would still exist without Microsoft. The only reason that there are so many for Windows is because of its widespread use.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    5. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      The link in your [the OP's] post has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

      Sure it does. Note the parent's UID and the home page. It was just a little bit o' Astroturfing, that's all.

      Without clicking, however, I'd wager that you were right. ;)

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    6. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's A reason. Contrary to Microsoft propaganda, it's not the ONLY reason. Any competent IT security person can point you to several gaping insecure-by-design holes in the Windows NT series (most aren't caused by the NT kernel design, which was theoretically good, but by MS's butchery further down the change)

    7. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is age-old though. Viruses and Trojans would seemingly not exist without Microsoft. Certainly, there would not be a need for anti-virus products because the numbers would be manageable enough via infrequent patching. Therefore, Microsoft is the problem.

      Sorry, that's horrible logic. If MS hadn't had issues with security the way they did, no one else would know to be focused on security! If MS didn't have massive security problems, someone else would have to, because no one would be prepared to defend against them, and the same people looking to capitalize on their gullability would.

    8. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      If everyone ran linux, then every business would still want an AV suite, whether it was needed or not.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    9. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Either way, viruses would still exist without Microsoft.

      True, there has been, and probably always will be, malware targeted at pretty much every platform in common use. The only reason that there are so many for Windows is because of its widespread use.

      No. From a security perspective, Windows is fundamentally flawed, and is a great host for malware.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    10. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Firstly, Open Source is much better at getting fixes out "right away".
      If you absolutly HAVE to have the fix NOW, you can get it.
      Or you can wait for your distro to release a fix that is a little more tested if you like.
      Anyone (well anyone with the programming skills) can create a fix for a flaw.

      With microsoft, you have to wait untill they decide to fix it and release it.

      Also, there are architecture flaws in the way Windows works that make it insecure.
      These include:
      1.On windows, any application (spyware, viruses, trojans etc) can add itself to the "load me at global OS startup" lists without user permission or knowledge. On linux you would need to be root to do this globally or you could do it just for that one user.
      2.On windows, several ports, network services etc (RPC for one) are exposed to the world by default (and some of them you cant even turn off). On linux, its much easier to lock it down so no ports are open and to only expose the network services you want to expose.
      There are others.

      One big thing I hate is how Internet Explorer handles MIME types. Specifically, any web browser should always use any MIME type the server provides to figure out what the content is. Mozilla/Firefox does this, IE does not. IE uses a combination of the MIME type, file extention and file content to figure out what to do with the file.
      This has lead to several security flaws in IE caused where a server spits out a file with a MIME type and extention that differ.
      If they treated the MIME type as authoratitive, everything would be consistant (and you wouldnt have one bit of code examine the MIME type and see that its text/plain and therefore there is no need to warn the user about potentially harmfull files then another bit check the extention and see that its .exe and that it should be passed to the OS and run).

    11. Re:Cannot trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another issue with ie that was mentioned by the wikimedia guys as a major problem is that ie seems to put its html autodetect code in priorty place over ANY mime type or file extention.

      The result is if you allow uploads you have to be incrediablly carefull not to allow html to leak trhough (which can contain scripts which can be used to steal the passwords of your sites users)

  9. Great, now they will have to stand in line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ...at the embassy to get a new one.

  10. what about liberty alliance? by munehiro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just some questions. Is the liberty alliance project still alive? does it provide a decentralized authentication proxy and will it be deployed concretely in some future?

    There were a lot of rumors about this "passport killer" but now it seems to be faded into silence.

    --
    -- "If A equals success, then the formula is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." - Einstein
    1. Re:what about liberty alliance? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, if the sole purpose of the Liberty Alliance was to kill Passport (as opposed to actually providing a competitive technology) then the Alliance will probably disband. The reasons for Passport's failure are legion, but lack of trust in Microsoft probably isn't the primary one. I'd say it was a solution trying desperately to find a problem. Even if Passport were provided by a corporation with the public's complete confidence (I can't name one offhand), Passport didn't serve a particularly useful purpose. Systems like Passport alter the security vs. convenience equation to a degree that a lot of people just find unacceptable, regardless of the provider. Oh, I know the claim was that since the individual vendors don't need to know your personal data you're more secure. But that's wrong. You now have a single point of failure (the Passport provider) that, when it finally gets compromised (and it will, if it hasn't already) can cause massive problems. Too much valuble information under one thumb. I'd rather have my personal data given to those few businesses I buy from online, and who throw that info away when the transaction is complete. I don't mind typing my credit card number in when I buy something.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:what about liberty alliance? by munehiro · · Score: 1

      Yes but keep in mind that a single sign-on system can be used for other purposes, from alleviate the burden of remembering tons of passwords (and accounts... my preferred login name is not available everywhere, so I finally have tons of modified login names and I have a lot of trouble remembering them all) to handling a grid sign-on. In these times where gridding is the future (and anonymous access to shared resources even more) knowing who you are and what you are allowed to do is very important.

      --
      -- "If A equals success, then the formula is A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." - Einstein
    3. Re:what about liberty alliance? by lamona · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, according to their web site they are. And the Internet2 community (mainly universities) is developing a way for its users to interact anonymously with online sites that require an identity. It's called Shibboleth . The weak spot in "Shib" is that it relies on the university's LDAP server to determine your status, but the identity that goes out across the net is regenerated for each new use and is short-lived. This wouldn't work for purchases, but it can define you as a legitimate subscriber to a service once you have signed on.

      "If you build this technology, they will require it." David Sobel, CFP 2000

      --
      I just read /. for the amusing .sigs
    4. Re:what about liberty alliance? by blackhedd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Liberty Alliance has been going through some transition among the senior ranks. It seems that the large consumer-oriented financial-services company that drove a lot of the initial buzz is taking some baby-steps away from the initiative. There seems to be some surprise that uptake for the L/A standards seems to be slow. Also, the vendors producing Liberty toolsets (including the open source ones) aren't maturing all that well. L/A does not truly mandate anything deeper than a fairly obvious and simplistic federation scheme to go along with those OASIS standards. Still, it's an important thing for enabling serious intra-enterprise commerce.
      Oh, right, we were talking about Passport! Ummm, L/A isn't the answer to widespread SSO by consumers any more than Passport was.

    5. Re:what about liberty alliance? by blackhedd · · Score: 1

      Shibboleth is part of a suite of technologies being built around the OASIS standards. The behavior you describe (short-lived identity-assertions generated by reference to an internal authentication process) is pretty standard for SAML. To me a more fundamental problem is the cross-organizational issues. I can choose as a matter of policy to accept your assertions (the dig-sig technology required to authenticate the assertion is easy). But how do I evaluate the security policy you have around that pesky LDAP server :-)?

    6. Re:what about liberty alliance? by lamona · · Score: 1

      But how do I evaluate the security policy you have around that pesky LDAP server :-)?

      That's why I think this only works in the educational environment of Internet2. To begin with, the main interactions are based on cooperation, not competition. There also isn't the need for precision that, say, a banking or credit card transaction needs. And the licenses for the educational environment (at least the licenses that I'm familiar with) are bulk, not transaction-based, which is another reason why precision isn't necessary. It's totally different from the b2c world that is typical of e-commerce.

      The only way to approximate that in a commercial environment would be to form "buyer's clubs." Sort of an online Costco (but you wouldn't have to buy everything by the dozen ;-). We could belong to the club, but the club would validate us and shield us from the actual merchants. However, the attempts to create anonymous purchasing systems that were so touted five or so years ago have all been met with disinterest, something that I find fascinating from a purely sociological viewpoint.

      --
      I just read /. for the amusing .sigs
    7. Re:what about liberty alliance? by ankhank · · Score: 1

      The XNS name registry was discontinued on July 9, 2002 in order to transition the XNS specifications to an established Internet standards body. XNSORG contributed the specifications to OASIS in late 2003 to begin the OASIS XRI (Extensible Resource Identifier) and XDI (XRI Data Interchange) Technical Committees (see
      http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri and
      http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xdi). In June, 2004, XNSORG changed its name to XDI.ORG (http://www.xdi.org) to reflect this new direction.

    8. Re:what about liberty alliance? by blackhedd · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your interesting comments. I quite agree with your conclusions as far as consumer-oriented applications are concerned. And that of course is the point of contact between Liberty Alliance and Passport.

      But I find interesting your answer to the mutual authentication issue ("buyer's club"). You seem to be suggesting a world full of PGP-style bipolar relationships in which business partners are known to each other and thus have a direct way to decide how much risk (and indemnification) to take, while accepting the assertions of an authentication system owned and operated by someone else. That comports with my theory that tripolar arrangements (with "trusted third-parties") won't work, and will never work, even though some of the Liberty-Alliance diehards still hold that out as the holy grail. That's the fundamental reason something like Passport can never work.

  11. Not surprising by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They shot themselves in the foot a long time ago with extremely high licensing costs and requirements as well as complicated implementation requirements (not to mention the tiny client portfolio or constant security problems).

    Besides, there's no push for businesses to either adopt single-sign-on services, or for customers to want it.
    Businesses require flexibility when it comes to user authorisation and profiles that 3rd-party services cannot offer.
    Most people either use the same user-name and password combination for all of their services, and there aren't many browsers that won't auto-complete u/p forms.

    At least with this announcement, Microsoft might be able to push some of it's resources from trying to push this serviced to 3rd parties to fixing the services internally (ever tried to log-out?)

    1. Re:Not surprising by ThinkTiM · · Score: 1

      "At least with this announcement, Microsoft might be able to push some of it's resources from trying to push this serviced to 3rd parties to fixing the services internally" ....Just what we need, more salesmen becomming programmers... :)

    2. Re:Not surprising by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just take a look at where the "How do I become a .NET Passport site" link goes...

    3. Re:Not surprising by ian13550 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides, there's no push for businesses to either adopt single-sign-on services, or for customers to want it.
      Businesses require flexibility when it comes to user authorisation and profiles that 3rd-party services cannot offer.


      Wow -- you really haven't been paying attention. Passport was AUTHENTICATION only (WHO you are) and not AUTHROIZATION (what you can ACCESS). Partner sites could always control what Passport users had access to.

      Also, there is a very real need for this type of technology. Case in point: Companies who partner/outsource various business functions to 3rd party providers. For example, my last company I worked for (*cough* Big 4 *cough*) had 3rd party providers for travel bookings, 401(k), etc. While they didn't use Passport, they implemented another technology solution to share AUTHENTICATION data with the partner site so that employees did not have to log in twice (or more) during their Session to complete their daily transactions.

      You'll also see this SSO/Affiliate/Federated technology being used to SSO people between different websites/infrastructures of HUGE corporations where each business unit is maintaining their own infrastructure and user stores. Hell, ATT/Cingular could create SSO between their two infrastructures using this -- same company (now) and 2 different sytems.

      MS gave SSO a black-eye with Passport. Many, many, many different types of companies are looking to integrate authentication data between systems while still "owning" their user's data.

    4. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main thing that Passport provided that using the u/p for every site or having your browser store your u/p's is that Passport could assure their clients that BobSmith234 from one site was the same BobSmith234 from another site. This would be useful if say eBay and a sportscard trading forum were both on Passport; you could see the eBay feedbacks of someone else on the trading forum and be assured it was actually them. Because the accounts were free and could be tied to free email accounts, this tracking wasn't a foolproof way to track people on the web, either.

      The problem is that anything requiring that you be 100% assured that this was the person you thought it was usually would dictate that you use separate u/p's for security puposes (in my earlier example, you wouldn't want someone exploiting your sportscard account to have access to your eBay account, because a huge bid in your name hurts a lot more than a forum post). This, compounded with huge licensing costs (not just anyone can plunk down $10K, particularly if they offer their service for free) and the dubious security track record of Microsoft products, killed it more than browser-based u/p collections or lack of need.

    5. Re:Not surprising by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Besides, there's no push for ... customers to want it.... Most people either use the same user-name and password combination for all of their services, and there aren't many browsers that won't auto-complete u/p forms.

      I dunno about this... I'd sooner have a single login for the most part. First, I don't exactly think that auto complete is either secure or praticle. I have 4 machines in my home alone that I access the internet with and what if I'm using a public terminal? Atleast with a universal login I would only have to remember one password instead of hoping to remember any number of passwords when I'm not at my own PC.

      And as for using the same user name and password? Good luck with that too. Either you have services that force you to use a set login (determined by them of course), services that require some funky alpha-numeric combination or your user name has already been taken. Don't even get me into the password issues, they're 3 times worse than trying to use the same user name.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:Not surprising by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      This would be useful if say eBay and a sportscard trading forum were both on Passport; you could see the eBay feedbacks of someone else on the trading forum and be assured it was actually them. Because the accounts were free and could be tied to free email accounts, this tracking wasn't a foolproof way to track people on the web, either.

      No they couldn't (unless both sites were owned by eBay). The user-data that eBay stored would be totally separate from the Passport servers (and the trading forum). The privacy policy was very strict about transfer of user-data between Microsoft and the sites, inter-site data wasn't even thought of.

  12. MS Shot Self in Foot by phaln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Microsoft continued to leave "security" off its list of "necessary items" to follow up on for years, they pretty much shot any hopes of controlling a unified authentication system out the door.

    Nobody takes them seriously as far as security goes. Just reading the headlines for a day would make that abundantly clear.

    Perhaps a competitor will come out with a clean record and a compelling product, but in this area it isn't going to be Microsoft, if anyone.

    --
    SNACKS ARE AWESOME
    1. Re:MS Shot Self in Foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Perhaps a competitor will come out with a clean record and a compelling product, but in this area it isn't going to be Microsoft, if anyone.

      Hmm, one name comes to mind....

      Google, anyone?

  13. A better system would be... by ThinkTiM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a public/private key scheme where public registrars keep your key. You keep your list of credit cards and identities on YOUR own devices. You then send encrypted information containing your credit card or identity in an industry standard packet of encyrpted information along with a link to the registrar.

    1. Re:A better system would be... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      how about te java ibutton it can be encrypted in the button, then when you need to communicate it the java ibutton simply encrypt it with the current session key after validating your user pin that was sent to it. secure from one end to the other and if you break one session key you can not break any other as they are all differnt.

      this has been around for a really long time. I demoed this back in 1998 at a Java conference when they were giving away rings with the java ibutton embedded in them.

      I still have my dev kit and use it to unlock my house.

      technology has existed for a long time, the discreet devices that can be on the person also exist and are dirt cheap (cheaper than a smartcard) insaanely durable and is completely open so that anyone can design the system without paying royalties.

      there is no excuse for it to not exist right now.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  14. Lost the battle, but war is not over by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They will be back. They have the time and the funds to punt on this..

    But they are not done...Total domination takes time.. They learned that lesson with java and the web in general...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Lost the battle, but war is not over by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      They will be back. They have the time and the funds to punt on this..

      Just like Microsoft Bob... they weren't done torturing the consumer when the Microsoft Office Assistant asked that infamous question.

    2. Re:Lost the battle, but war is not over by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      "Bob" was different, it was just a failed application ( which if it looked at objectively, it was a good concept, just badly implemented )..

      The winner of the 'single signon' battle wins a LOT of money, and control over a much larger playing field..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Lost the battle, but war is not over by zecg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long now do you think it will be before Google announces its own system?

      --
      .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
  15. So whats next? by v0idnull · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So really, whats next? If anything, the world would benefit from some simplification in identification. I'd feel more comfortable with one company or government knowing my details, then 20/30 companies and various different governments knowing my details. Mind you, Passport sucked. But thats no excuse to not try to do something better.

  16. Noble cause by confusion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The idea behind passport, at least partly, was a good idea in making the internet a little more consistant and easier to use for the herds of everyday people. The big problem is that when a company like MS forges a solution, its going to have strings attached and a financial motivation to pressure companies to do things they don't want to do.

    I still think the idea is valid, but the implementation and execution, in true MS form, left a lot to be desired.

    1. Re:Noble cause by fermion · · Score: 1
      It seems that retailer generally don't like consumers to have a choice. Walmart undercuts competition until they go out of business. Krogers has loyalty cards, which they can mine and sell the aggregate data. Bookstores do the same thing. Even smaller player, like medical dispensing, has loyalty programs. Competition commercial interest profits. They want it gone, and it is the reason why government must insure that adequate competition exists.

      So why then would any retailer want a system that makes it easier to get to a competitors site. Why would a retailer want competitors to know how customers spend money at the retailer store.

      The problem with Passport was it was a huge cognitive dissonance on the part of MS. It was not the first, and will not be the last. Commercial interests are not in the internet because it provides the means to perfect competition. They are there so as not to lose sales. Their nightmare is someone using Yahoo and having the freedom to buy from the cheapest place because everyone is a "trusted retailer" with data stored in Passport. Their hope for is that the consumer will pay the extra buck because it is not worth the effort to set up a new account at the other retailer.

      Online retailers go through great effort to register customers, collect data, and make repeat sales as painless as possible. In the process they make the first sale hard. But look at someone like Amazon. Are they more interested in someone who makes one purchase a year, or the customer who will make a purchase a week because of oneclick? Are the grocery stores making more money on sales of goods or sales of consumer patterns? Do either want to give up the lucrative sideline to MS.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  17. Kerberos? by spud603 · · Score: 1

    I don't know much about the underlying technology, but I've been in a few systems that use kerberos, and it seems to do the job of authentication nicely without any yucky credit card/personal info messyness.
    Could kerberos be implemented on the web somehow, or is it only good for intranets?

  18. Re:It's gotta be the name by rtstyk · · Score: 1

    Get a sense of humor dear mod.

    The post was meant to agree with other poster about how this has mostly to do with people not even embracing but not even touching this with a 10 foot pole rather than corporations not implementing it. They would do so in a heartbeat if it was something people wanted.

    --
    I hate the fact that you people don't salute me
  19. ms money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe MS Money 2005 won't force you to use passport. I'm still using MS Money 2001 for this reason.

    1. Re:ms money by RupW · · Score: 1

      Maybe MS Money 2005 won't force you to use passport. I'm still using MS Money 2001 for this reason.

      No, I think it does. I suspect they're using it so they can cut off your access to the MSN financial feeds after however-many years you get. You can get a demo from Microsoft and try it if you want.

      But Money *2004* definitely has a no-Passport 'I don't need to use online features' option.

    2. Re:ms money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS Money 2005 does require a Passport account, which pisses me off.

      There is no logical reason for it, other than MS wants people to sign up for their failing idea.

      The only reason I use is becuase I got it for free and it can retrieve my bank statements.

      I am going to switch to another company.

  20. Downfall? by Albinofrenchy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wow, it's looking bad for MS. Firefox, IE exploits, linux sneaking up on them, and their attempt to be big brother now fails too. I'll be sure to toss a rose on the casket when the giant dies off for sure, albeit a black rose.

    --
    "A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
    1. Re:Downfall? by east+coast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, it's looking bad for MS. Firefox, IE exploits, linux sneaking up on them, and their attempt to be big brother now fails too.

      The truth is that it failed long ago and it just took this long for it to swing around. As for the rest? I've been hearing for years and years how Linux and open source was going to crush MS to a pulp. At the current pace it'll happen right around the year 2112.

      And I'm not being trollish. Let's at least accept the fact that when you're in a biased community like Slashdot you're going to see things with a heavy slant. Joe Sixpack STILL hasn't embraced open source, cares little about it and is even less inclined to learning a new OS, free or not. Not to even factor in the school system. Once I see a serious move to Linux in accessible schools like state universities, community colleges and the free public schooling system maybe there will be something there.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Downfall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank God! It had been ten minutes since the last Slashdot proclamation of Microsoft's impending death, and I was becoming concerned that all of you people had been swallowed by a tidal wave or something.

      So, it's all back to normal. Whew! Now, please kill yourself, as you are clearly too stupid to live.

    3. Re:Downfall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free public schooling system maybe

      There is nothing free about public schools. Checked your taxes lately?

    4. Re:Downfall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a troll, this is not flamebait. (or, at the least, it's not trying to be.)

      Has anyone else noticed the similarities between zeaoltry for socialism/communism and linux? Not that there's anything wrong with a more socialistic society, but the way we're going about it just seems wrong to me.

    5. Re:Downfall? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      The truth is that it failed long ago and it just took this long for it to swing around. As for the rest? I've been hearing for years and years how Linux and open source was going to crush MS to a pulp. At the current pace it'll happen right around the year 2112.

      Was that a deliberate RUSH reference?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:Downfall? by sloanster · · Score: 1

      And I'm not being trollish. Let's at least accept the fact that when you're in a biased community like Slashdot you're going to see things with a heavy slant. Joe Sixpack STILL hasn't embraced open source,

      LOL, you're missing the point - slashdot IS joe sixpack. The bias we are seeing is summed up in the sort of comments you made above. What, you think slashdot is some sort of linux community? Nah, look around, slashdotters are for the most part microsoft windows users.

    7. Re:Downfall? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Was that a deliberate RUSH reference?

      In some ways. It's the year I use to represent any semi-distant future event. Yeah, I'm a Rush fan.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    8. Re:Downfall? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      LOL, you're missing the point - slashdot IS joe sixpack.

      The REAL Joe Sixpacks of the world wouldn't be caught dead on a geek site. These are the same people who think that Mythbusters and the LOTRs films are strictly for nerds. These are the same people that give AOL money and helped Dell build an empire. They can not be discounted.

      What, you think slashdot is some sort of linux community? Nah, look around, slashdotters are for the most part microsoft windows users.

      I don't know what slashdot you've been reading. For God's sake, an exec from Sun makes a snide remark about Linux in his blog and it was posted as news! Let the same person make some snide remark about MS and it would have been passed over. Sure, Slashdot reports on Windows but only in a bad light. But let there be a new version of some Linux distro and it's all over the place.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  21. Passport was a bad name by DoctorHibbert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My wife was buying airline tickets on Expedia when it asked her to log in, the first log in choice was to use her Passport id. So she dutifully goes and retrieves her US passport. Yes, I laughed at her too, but still the confusion was understandable, she was buying airline tickets after all.

    Maybe if they would have called WebId or something more descriptive it might have caught on.

    --
    Arbitrary sig
    1. Re:Passport was a bad name by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if they would have called WebId or something more descriptive it might have caught on.

      Because that would have made it seem even less secure.

    2. Re:Passport was a bad name by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      y wife was buying airline tickets on Expedia when it asked her to log in, the first log in choice was to use her Passport id. So she dutifully goes and retrieves her US passport. Yes, I laughed at her too

      I wouldn't laugh at her at all. Instead, laugh at the arrogant marketers at Microsoft that think they can take a noun with a very specific meaning and repurpose it (and probably trademark it too). Micorosoft products like "Word" "Windows" etc. are pretty poorly named IMHO, because Microsoft wants to avoid the expense of coming up with a real name.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    3. Re:Passport was a bad name by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Micorosoft products like "Word" "Windows" etc. are pretty poorly named IMHO

      Sorry, but what about products like: Draw [Corel] , Write [OOo], & Notes [Lotus]?

      because Microsoft wants to avoid the expense of coming up with a real name

      Give me a break. It's just a name. They use something that sounds snzzy that might or might not have to do with the function of the application in question.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Passport was a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just nitpicking... It's Writer, not Write (at least in OpenOffice.org 1.1.0). :)

    5. Re:Passport was a bad name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife was buying airline tickets on Expedia when it asked her to log in, the first log in choice was to use her Passport id. So she dutifully goes and retrieves her US passport. Yes, I laughed at her too, but still the confusion was understandable, she was buying airline tickets after all.

      Maybe if they would have called WebId or something more descriptive it might have caught on.


      Or simply Something like NetPassport?

    6. Re:Passport was a bad name by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Wooops...

      I wrote this on my Windows box at work, instead of my Linux box at home... My bad...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:Passport was a bad name by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't laugh at her at all. Instead, laugh at the arrogant marketers at Microsoft that think they can take a noun with a very specific meaning and repurpose it (and probably trademark it too). Micorosoft products like "Word" "Windows" etc. are pretty poorly named IMHO, because Microsoft wants to avoid the expense of coming up with a real name.

      If you are a company bent on world domination, what better vehicle than *branding* generic, commonly used words? Then the language becomes a self-reinforcing sales tool. With the cooperation of a friendly DOJ and USPTO, how could corporate life get any better?

      Breaking news: The DOJ announced today that it is cracking down on cab companies for violating Microsoft's rights. First, the "cab" format is a proprietary vehicle for transferring program files, not passengers. Second, the cab drivers' use of the phrase, "Where do you want to go?" violates Microsoft's eternal copyrights. A spokesman for the DOJ said, "We're taking no prisoners on this one. We're taking it to the street, and the cabbies are going down."

    8. Re:Passport was a bad name by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Repurpose isn't a word.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    9. Re:Passport was a bad name by blkmagic · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. It's commonly used in business and corporate environments. If you're going to try to correct someone, at least do a Google search before posting. Sigh...

    10. Re:Passport was a bad name by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I did a google search. Type in a word, and hit search. Repurpose doesn't come up with a dictionary link.

      This is the link to make it easy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=repurpose&btn G=Google+Search

      See? the place where it says "Results 1 - 100 of about 93,700 for repurpose." doesn't have the word linked to a dictionary entry. So, if you're going to scold someone, at least do a Google search to verify that Google will say what you think it's going to say.

      But this is actually interesting, since the dictionary definition you linked to is from the same dictionary that Google uses to highlight their words on the search page. Since 'repurpose' is not highlighted on the Google page, but clearly exists in the dictionary, it seems that we have discovered a bug in their dictionary lookup program.

      Anyway, even though it's actually a word, I still hate that word.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    11. Re:Passport was a bad name by blkmagic · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of the word myself, but I did do a Google search. Look at the tenth link on the search link you posted in your comment above. If you're going to scold someone for scolding you... *grin* I just didn't go to the blue bar; I looked at the results. That's actually pretty interesting, though. I've never actually clicked on the link in the blue bar to see that it jumps to a definition because I usually just go straight to dictionary.reference.com.

    12. Re:Passport was a bad name by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but what about products like: Draw [Corel] , Write [OOo], & Notes [Lotus]?

      Are you asking my opinion of the names of these product names? If so, I'm not a big fan, but nothing I said in my original post should imply that Microsoft is the only organization that has poorly named products.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  22. Re:It's gotta be the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously you did an awful job at conveying that.

  23. Not really either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real problem was the design and implementation. Is was designed for MS to take control of the internet which is what they are focused on. But in typical MS fashion, it has no real security and MS corp. does not know security.

  24. One login is easy for identity theft. by Yaa+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me have my 1000's of different logins as you can't imagine what happens when your only identity online get's compromised.
    Imagine the work you need to pick up the pieces, this after all the work you need to make sure that the theft's impact remains small...

    People that buy in on a single net identity are not so smart it seems...

    1. Re:One login is easy for identity theft. by RupW · · Score: 1

      Let me have my 1000's of different logins as you can't imagine what happens when your only identity online get's compromised.

      But can you remember them *all*? Or do you write them down somewhere, making a different single point of failure?

      Most people just use the same set of passwords anyway. If you got hold of Amazon's passwords you'd probably have access to a huge number of eBay accounts, for example. It all comes down to convenience, and if the single point of failure is well secured and well administered then it's a good-enough solution for Amazon and eBay, etc. It's not a good idea for anything ultra secure like your bank.

    2. Re:One login is easy for identity theft. by mce · · Score: 1
      I can remember most of them. My memory still is functioning 20/20, thank you... :-)

      I'll admit that that's partly because I reuse a some paswords if the site in question isn't that important to me (anything possibly involving money is important!), but I do use a subtantial set of paswords overall. Even if you get to know one of these reused paswords, it will only give you access to at most 3 sites, as oposed to all of them as would be the case with MS passport.

      And yes, some of these paswords are even to be found on a piece of paper. Trouble for an identity thief is, however, that in order to get this piece of paper he or she first needs to break into my appartment, then find the paper (it's not to be found in any obvious place), then know how to decode the strings on it (yep, they're encrypted, even if with an easy algorithm since I need to be able to apply it in my head), and then find out which of these belongs to what account (because that info is not written down).

  25. Misunderstanding by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1
    would stop trying to persuade Web sites

    in Microsoft Monopoly Speak - MMS (TM), really means "will consider a pause in their relentless assault, using their normal ordinance of bullying tactics"

    The normal ordinance includes: discounts on volume software, initiation of free services to smother the competitor, buy the competitor, make sure the competitors product 'breaks for no reason' on IE, guido the leg breaker, a legion of attorneys, concrete blocks, having clippy threaten to make them sleep with the phishes.

    these are employed in no particular order

  26. passport to be replaced by chip- in your hand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the goal is security than why do they convince people to give away more and more of their personal information?

    Security isn't based upon giving up your personal information to some company or government,
    keep more of your personal information to yourself - that is real security.

  27. Newsflash! by Foofoobar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Innovation isn't really innovation if no one wants it but you.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Newsflash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it still innovation if people want it, but not FROM you?

  28. Misconceptions by RupW · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Redmond software company said Wednesday it would stop trying to persuade Web sites to use its Passport service, which stores consumers' credit-card and other information as Internet users surf from place to place."

    • Passport does not store your credit-card details any more. You had to opt in to passport's Wallet service to do this. Microsoft discontinued Wallet a long time ago.
    • You do not have to provide any personal details to Passport. If you do, you can refuse Passport permission to pass them on to other sites. In this case, all the end sites get is your 64-bit user ID.
    • End sites cannot store information in your Passport account. The API is one way only. To alter the details in your Passport you have to go to passport.net
    • Passport is a trusted third-party for authentication. You don't log into any passport-enabled site directly; they redirect you to a secure page on passport.net (often with some source-site branding) and Passport redirects you back to them once you've logged in.
    • Passport absolutely DOES NOT "store your passwords". A few people said this in the eBay story's comments (!). Come on people, we're supposed to be tech-savvy here.

    I'm almost sorry to see it go - it was a usable, simple to integrate single-sign-on with a big name, money and a fair critical mass behind it. Shame the entry price was so high.
    1. Re:Misconceptions by s7uar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Coupled with the cost, that 2nd point will be the reason there was such a low take-up by 3rd party sites. Companies use your registration details for far more than just letting you in to the site - giving demographics to advertisers for example. If they're going to allow logins from clients with no details, they may as well do away with the registration all together.

    2. Re:Misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on people, we're supposed to be tech-savvy here.

      That doesn't matter! We're open source! We cackle with glee anytime anything negative happens to MicroSoft reguardless of their possitive technology and market force. The facts and truth don't matter just as long as it's open source it's good...

      Microsoft bad! Microsoft bad!

      Two words: MicroSoft Bob! Even given that it happened 9 years ago we have to continue to beat this dead horse!! It's so much fun to make fun of a product that failed so long ago most slashdot users never experienced it first hand!

      Bow to Linus! Or you're nothing but a fucktard!

    3. Re:Misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Passport is a trusted third-party for authentication.

      Yes, and I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

    4. Re:Misconceptions by RupW · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

      I meant that it's using the "trusted third-party" model, expressing it in terms you'll see in Schneier's book, etc. Whether you trust it or not, of course, is up to you.

    5. Re:Misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm almost sorry to see it go

      Why? Passport security was a joke. Completely susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks and vulnerable to anyone with a packet sniffer. Passport "security" was practically non-existant.

  29. What snapped in my head when I read this by mr.+marbles · · Score: 2, Funny

    To quote Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons "HA-HA!"

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Pedantic nitpicking... by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    Homer:(to Gates) I reluctantly accept your proposal!
    Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!

    Bill Gates companions begin to trash the "office".

    Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!
    Gates:Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!

    Bill Gates lets out a maniacal laugh. Homer and Marge cower in the corner as the room continues to be trashed.

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  32. Troll Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sodas are still free.

  33. Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody.

    if you believe that i have a bridge to sell you & yes, i accept all major credit cards.

  34. As we recall from the anti-trust court transcripts by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "would stop trying to persuade Web sites"

    Perhaps if they did this mafia style with a hammer and some other blunt objects they would have better sucess


    You mean like they did when they threatened some of their largest customers with much higher licensing costs when they were considering deploying Netscape instead of Internet Exploder (as detailed in the anti-trust court records)?

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  35. Great. by bredk · · Score: 1

    This is so great. I'd hate to see a internet-wide passport incompatible with anything but windows, buggy and very costy. Happy NY.

    --
    http://slashdot.su/
  36. Oh, what a shock!! by kamesh · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now how am I going to live my life!! It was doomed to begin with...buggy softwares in the area of payments will never work.

    1. Re:Oh, what a shock!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buggy softwares in the area of payments will never work.

      It hasn't been used for payments in *a long time*. Get with the program.

  37. It's Federation, not passports that matter by bec1948 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real action is in federation and the ability of identity management systems to share trusts. Sure, it would be convenient if we didn't have to worry about the dozens of passwords we require for web sites we visit, including Slashdot. But that's a mere inconvenience compared to the issues faced by large organizations attempting to communicate together at an application level of trust.

    There are many instances where two or more organizations would like to allow individual humans ,software programs, and devices to communicate once they've been properly identified as 'authenticated' on each other's systems, but the costs of determining which of these entities have that appropriate authorization is too high for the recipient organizations. It's difficult enough to ensure that one's own people/programs have appropriate authorizations and privledges.

    Sharing information on each of the potentially millions of instances requiring authentication becomes prohibitively complex and costly. Just managing a directory system that contained 1/4 million employees and a million other internal objects is a huge undertaking. Adding even a fraction of that number of directory objects from dozens of other entities is a burden unlikely to be acceptable.

    Enter Federation. My organization trusts these individuals with the set of priviledges that our two organizations have agreed upon as apporpriate for our digital communications and my organization accepts the responsibility to maintain the integrity of our side of the connection. Our identity management system connects to yours and through the use of appropriate handshaking protocols (the federation part - over simplified, I know) demonstrates that trust exists and the communication can occur.

    Now instead of maintaining a directory of millions of outside entities etc., we need only maintain a directory record for each approved communcations process.

    These issues cross so many disciplines and technologies from e-mail and IM, to SOA and more, that federated trusts becomes necesary if the process is to work at all. Further discussion of this topic belongs, and probably already exists, in a another thread.

    1. Re:It's Federation, not passports that matter by swright · · Score: 1

      this sounds very interesting, but I'm having trouble working out how this would work (probably not helped by the wine on this New Year's Eve before going out).

      do you have any references to this other thread with more info?

    2. Re:It's Federation, not passports that matter by bec1948 · · Score: 1

      It's hard to reference since most of the discussions on this topic are within the context of the proprietary identity/access management products on the market: IBM Tivoli, Netegrity, Novell, Sun all make products that enable the control from the enterprise side. The issues the vendors are facing is integration with public systems like Passport or the Liberty Alliance, and more private federations based upon the same technologies. Obviously, this is a big issue if you're involved in B2B and SOA. Also, it's an area of focus for my companies competitive analysis research. I suspect that resolution of these issues, will be a focus of enterprise computing and application development in the next few years.

  38. I doubt it by Tuqui · · Score: 1

    They are so shamed that they pull their Directory of sites using .NET Passport from http://www.passport.net/Directory/Default.asp

  39. No authentication system valid by SilentChris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, I keep reading that no one trusted Passport because of Microsoft's history of security. I know that's one reason I didn't (my only Passport account hooks up with Hotmail and Xbox Live) but let me ask you this:

    Would you go for a universal authentication system if it was run by Apple? How about if open source folks developed a system aside from Sun's and tried to market that? I wouldn't.

    There's nothing inherently more secure about having my passwords stored on a single server out there than the current system, and, quite frankly, there's not much more convience in it.

    The only "true" solution I could see for universal passwords is something akin to Keychain on Apple, or, to a lesser extent, saved passwords in Windows. Something that would store all passwords locally, encrypted, and would allow the user to use one login. Match that up with, say, a biometric recognition scheme, and I'd be all for it.

    1. Re:No authentication system valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has two competing products in these field: NetInfo (older, from Next) and LDAP (actually OpenLDAP, just like the Linuxes/BSDs). Unfortunately, we've been fighting Apple's modified OpenLDAP and automounters for months. They simply broke compatibility for no good reason. Apple reps keep trying to sell us on buying more Macs to add to our cluster, but they're unmaintainable in our current environment, and I suspect in any environment. A lot of the features exist, but are too broken to use in production (we've been taking Macs *out* of production as a result of problems, and aren't buying any more for years).

      So no, I wouldn't use Apple's authentication system, as it's already burned us repeatedly. OpenLDAP (on Debian) is something we are using for a wide array of authentication, mail, account, etc. It's not scleable to millions of accounts though as we understand it (too many linear search paths), but is scaleable to thousands of services.

    2. Re:No authentication system valid by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      There's nothing inherently more secure about having my passwords stored on a single server out there than the current system, and, quite frankly, there's not much more convience in it.

      Good point. But if you market the system effectively, you can make people believe it's more secure and convenient.

    3. Re:No authentication system valid by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Up until you get a lot of respected computer scientists giving interviews on 60 minutes, the EU stops your ads due to misleading content, and the first break-in happens.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    4. Re:No authentication system valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Match that up with, say, a biometric recognition scheme, and I'd be all for it.

      Why do you fucking morons keep arguing for biometric recognition as the end-all solution to authentication?

  40. Why I think it failed by BlueTooth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A lot of people focus on the issues of passport as trusting Microsoft issues. While we here might feel that way, the world at large either does trust Microsoft, or doesn't care / know any better. However, and I don't know if my experiences were common, every time I tried to use passport, it would fail to log me into the site claiming to support it! I would invariably get stuck in a forwarding loop and never get authenticated...every year or so I would get an opertunity to try the login again, every year I thought, "they probably got the kinks out by now" and every year, it didn't work.

    --
    SPAM
  41. disinformation by bmajik · · Score: 1

    free sodas have not been cut. insurance benefits have not been cut. towel service on redmond campus was cut.

    My team had its christmas party already. My old team also had its.

    There isn't a "single MS christmas party", because that would be at least 40k people for redmond alone. Christmas parties have been team/division specific for a long time.

    Where is the announcement that jobs are "moving to tsunami country" ? MS is doing additional hiring at multiple sites, US including (as in, multiple sites IN THE US).

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:disinformation by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      If they haven't been cut in your area yet, it only means that someone in your department is using their 'moral money' for those things... it does not mean it wasn't cut; it just means that depts that still want those things have to declare them.

      And you forgot to mention how your benefits are being cut as well. So in other words, you are still wrong. :)

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  42. Looses by ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh...shouldn't it be "Microsoft Looses Passport"? ;)

    1. Re:Looses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      loose
      Pronunciation Key (ls)
      adj. looser, loosest

      1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.

      lose
      Pronunciation Key (lz)
      v. lost, (lôst, lst) losing, loses
      v. tr.

      1. To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay: He's always losing his car keys.

      This is a common error that has annoyed me for quite some time..

    2. Re:Looses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a common error that has annoyed me for quite some time..

      You idiot, it's not an error.

      "Looses" is appropriate in this case, because Microsoft has cut Passport loose. It didn't "lose" Passport - that would imply it was accidental.

      No, this is a very deliberate loosening. The official /. title is incorrect, not this correction.

      Sometimes a little knowledge is a bad thing. You may feel like a big man to know the difference between two words, but you might want to think a bit more about how they can actually be used. Instead, you knee-jerk and criticize others, while only highlighting your own ignorance and lack of understanding of the joke and the point made in the parent post.

    3. Re:Looses by ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu · · Score: 1

      Which part of the winking-smiley face didn't you understand?

  43. Passport, shmashport by oldfox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was a poor design and like the Soviet Union once the central plan didn't comport with reality, it had to die on the ash heap of history. The idiot MSN Groups is what killed it for me. If you have multiple identities, multiple email addresses, and different ones are joined to different groups, you can't remember which identity is to which group. The idiot MSN implementation sends you emails from the group but doesn't show you the email address that the message is being sent to--your own email address. So you can't figure out which one to use to sign onto the Passport and of course since you use multiple identities you don't want it cookified on you. Then the necxt problem is that it won't let you even use it if your cookies are turned off. You'd think Microsoft would have figured with all their security problems that people will turn off cookies and ActiveX (they give you the function to do it in Explorer) but then their passport thing doesn't work. I hated it and would join Yahoo Grpoups instead of MSN Groups and they have their own problems but not this really quite rudimentary level of stupidity.

  44. From a Script Kiddie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damz0r n0w I do'nt h@v 0n3 box to sna7Ch @ll ma CCz frum.

  45. No Successful MS Innovations... by terryfunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More and more, all of MS's 'innovations' are tanking. Passport, Active Directory, Xbox, MSN 'google' search engine, IE, recently acquired AV software and the list goes on and on, not only were NOT innovative, they actually purchased the technology. See: [http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/catalog/cata log.shtml]

    They then embraced and extend the technology they purchased.

    Of course one of the worst purchases was PassPort.
    ugh!!! Good riddance......

    1. Re:No Successful MS Innovations... by fzammett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a stupid post, even for Slashdot...

      * Passport - Yep, you got that one right. It tanked not because it was a bad idea, but because it was executed horribly bad. Be that as it may, your right, it failed. You are 1 for 1.

      * Active Directory - Not even close to a failure. No, it's not the basis for every network as I'm sure they wanted, but it is used, and used with great success generally, in MS shops around the world. You can hate it, you can say some people have trouble with it, you can point out all sorts of problems if you want, but to say it tanked is flat-out not consistent with reality. You are 1 for 2.

      * XBox. Failure?!? It's #2 behind only PS/2, which had a MASSIVE head-start as well as building on a previous winner, PS/1. Again, you can point out all the negatives you want, and I'd even agree with many, but saying it tanked is not even remotely close. Just because it doesn't rule the world doesn't make it a failure by any stretch. You are 1 for 3.

      * MSN 'google search engine - Well, seeing as how it's only come into existence in the last month or so (and isn't it still in beta anyway??), saying it tanked is very premature. I suspect it WILL tank, but you cannot in fairness call it a failure yet. You are 1 for 4, with the possibility of being 2 for 4 down the road.

      * IE tanked? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING?!? Yes, Firefox is coming on strong, and we can post all the problems with IE ad nauseum, but calling something that STILL holds a 90% share of the market is not tanking my friend. As a matter of fact, it's an unqualified success, putting aside how it got there anyway. You are 1 for 5.

      * Recently acquired AV software - Now your post is bordering on the absurd. No, I take that back... You aren't bordering anything, you are firmly on the absurd side of the fence. How can something they acquired in the last two months be a failure already? They haven't even put out an MS-branded version yet! Give me a break guy. 1 for 6.

      I won't argue with your comment about them purchasing most of their products. That's pretty much fact, very little of what they do is actually original or home-grown. But innovative doesn't mearly mean what you create yourself. You can hate MS and Windows all you want, and I'd join you in most of it, but you cannot deny the impact their products have had on the world. We can argue how things might have turned out had Apple and/or others been leading the way, but all we know for sure is how things DID turn out. Microsoft has pretty much single-handedly brought computers to the masses, and if you can't see that and give them credit at least for that you are insanely diluted.

      Believe me, I'm not defending them. There's PLENTY to hammer them for. But without Windows, 75% of the "computing public" as we know it today wouldn't be able to use a computer. You may argue whether that's a good thing or not, but to say it's not is frankly wrong, end of story. And if you want to say someone else would have done what they did and probably better, again, you may be completely right, but we'll never know, we only know for sure what actually is, and that's Microsoft and Windows. It was their innovation, whatever meaning someone chooses to ascribe that word in this case, that got us here. Maybe it is time to go another direction, but let's not credit them for where we are at the same time we chastise them for the very same thing!

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    2. Re:No Successful MS Innovations... by kerrle · · Score: 1
      I'll agree the post is stupid, but I do want to make one comment - the XBox is technically number #3 - but more to the point, isn't profitable.

      Microsoft loses a ton of money every year on the X-Box, and it isn't made back within the division. If it wasn't for the fact that their OS and Office divisions were so profitable, the X-Box would indeed have been the next Dreamcast, or worse.

      I don't know if that counts as a hit or a miss, as they are now entrenched in the industry, but as is, if they suffered a hit in the OS or Office divisions, it could kill X-Box.

    3. Re:No Successful MS Innovations... by fzammett · · Score: 1

      My bad, I thought they were ahead of the Gamecube (we are only counting current consoles I assume? I am). I'll still give the parent a miss though...

      As I understand it, they intended to lose money initially on the XBox and make it up later on game sales. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they probably didn't even expect that to happen until XBox 2 comes out.

      In any case, as you say, they weren't a player in the industry before and now they are, I think that's a perfectly fair statement to make.

      The fact that other divisions are covering the losses isn't I think evidence of it being a failure, just evidence that they can maintain business models that others never could. My guess, based on everything I've read, is that the XBox has done at least close to what they expected, at least not far enough below the targets to warrant calling it a failure, so it's still a miss for the parent I think, albeit maybe an arguable one :)

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    4. Re:No Successful MS Innovations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ut without Windows, 75% of the "computing public" as we know it today wouldn't be able to use a computer.

      Bullshit. The Mac made the computer easy to use, well before Windows. In fact, most users hate computers because Windows makes it so difficult.

      I don't understand where you get this idea. The MacOS is infinitely easier to use for average people, and it was microsoft that copied everything from Apple.

      So in effect, Windows is the Mac interface, not a Microsoft product. If Apple never made the Mac, we would still be using MS-DOS, AppleDOS and commandlines.

  46. Another take on why it failed... by Cloud+K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People don't like being nagged, and when nagged many have a tendency to do the opposite.

    Myself, my father, my mother all had to go through the same thing. "Please create a passport" "OK, wtf is a passport and why do I want it?" *click* (lots of marketing mumbo jumbo that Joe Average has to make an effort to read (a big no-no). *click "later" or whatever*

    Next reboot "Please create a passport!!11one!" - at this point you start to get mildly irritated. "I told you last time - now if I find I have the need for a Passport I'll come get one! Go away!"

    Next reboot "Please create a passport OR ELSE!!!" - now you start to get pissed off. Stop nagging, I hate things that nag especially computers, go-the-heck-away. Now you make a conscious effort to *avoid* learning about Passport. This is where MS go wrong. What they should have done is made it so that you *want* to learn about Passport - not so that you hate it so much before you even know what it does that you never want to see it again.

    Next reboot - "Your desktop is untidy. Clean it up please" - at this point you either a) Bend over and do what it says, b) Go to a tech tip site and learn how to turn *off* all the stupid naggy things that try to tell you want to do, c) Format and install Linux or d) Put the Dell in the bin and buy a Mac.

    I seriously hope when Longhorn comes out they look at some of the simple Human-Computer Interaction guidelines like "don't try to make the computer (sorry I forgot the word... androsomething... where it acts like a human)" and "don't nag". Nagging = bad impression of product.

    1. Re:Another take on why it failed... by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      The word "anthropomorphic" looks at you with its sad eyes and cries a bit because you forgot it. How could you? It's so cute!

    2. Re:Another take on why it failed... by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Try not to anthropomorphize computers. They hate it when you do that.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Another take on why it failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d) Put the Dell in the bin and buy a Mac.

      What's the forecast in hell? Mac is for the arrogent elite.

    4. Re:Another take on why it failed... by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      Guess what I am ;)

    5. Re:Another take on why it failed... by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      If I could mod you up, I would :) It could be worse.. it could be and anthropomorphic out of an anime with huge eyes and that lovable shine ;)

    6. Re:Another take on why it failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or worse still, it could be a paperclip...

    7. Re:Another take on why it failed... by ag4vr · · Score: 1
      Couldn't M$ use a much simpler setup process...like:
      USE="-balloon-help -clippy -ie -drm -activex"
      emerge winxp
      Now we have cottage industries built on tweaking the registry, removing crapware and blocking popups. On top of that, we still have to ask M$ for permission to actually use their bloatware, even after we have already paid for it!

      I guess we should be thankful M$ isn't running the Department of Homeland Security. We'd have a 32-bit color-code terror threat system and spyware redirecting us to web sites to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting.

      Sigh.

  47. Microsoft Passport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was a passport to failure.

  48. Content Is The Key To Internent Dominance by reallocate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >> Microsoft is abandoning one of its most controversial attempts to dominate the Internet...

    While I don't that that Microsoft or any other business would dearly love to dominate the Internet, I never got the impression that Passport was anything more than a thinly veiled branding effort intende to drive traffic to sites that had done deals with MS. The whole thing was premised on the now-understood-to-be-wrong assumption that logging on to different sites was going to present an insurmountable hurdle for people. (It hasn't; everyone just uses the same damn ID and password for everything.)

    Remember, the Internet is just a network. What counts is the content. If you wanna dominate the Internet. dominate its content.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Content Is The Key To Internent Dominance by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      No, the main idea behind .Net Passport (or the Hailstorm part of it, or whatever name they failed to communicate) was that they wanted to set themselves up as the gatekeeper, to have all authentication go through them, and have all user information go through them. That kind of power in one company is bad news for everyone else.

    2. Re:Content Is The Key To Internent Dominance by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Right, which is just another way of saying what I said. You're looking at it from a technical perspective, I'm looking at it from another perspective: The purpose of controlling centralized authentication is to make money, not to dominate the net.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    3. Re:Content Is The Key To Internent Dominance by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      Imagine that it would have succeeded, that all users would have demanded this single-signon from every webiste. In that case, being the only vendor of the webserver that can allow this, IIS, is pretty close to domination of the net. Yes, I know, the web is not the entire internet, but still. It would have been yet another monopoly they could abuse.

    4. Re:Content Is The Key To Internent Dominance by reallocate · · Score: 1

      In your scenario, MS would have dominated the servers, but without content the Internet is empty. To my way of thinking, dominating the internet means dominating its content, not is authentication scheme.

      This is roughly akin to someone doing a deal that forces every TV to be controlled with their remote, otherwise the TV won't work. Most of us would buy the right remote. In the end, though, the only thing being dominated would be the remote control market. We'd still watch whatever we wanted to.

      Similarly, few of us would avoid visiting a web site we like just because it wasn't using the MS scheme, or refuse to visit it because it did use that scheme. We visit sites that deliver content we want; any needed authenication is just an annoyance on the way in.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    5. Re:Content Is The Key To Internent Dominance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it would be more like having to buy a whole new tv to watch. Controlling the software that the internet runs on, in my book, does surely mean controlling the www (what the majority of the population think is the internet) and more (control the os, and server software, you can then attempt to control the browser, and os that clients run). You can also be sure this was what was on their minds at the time. Don't let the details slip by, they can sometimes be important. M$ is famous for getting in the sneaky way, you can't let your vigilance slip.

    6. Re:Content Is The Key To Internent Dominance by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Even if I accepeted your "whole new TV" argument (I don't) it would still mean control of the TV set industry, not television.

      The people who make and distribute TV content dominate the industry. That's equally true for the Internet. No TV content, no TV industry., even if we all buy new TV sets. No internet content, no internet, no matter what MS does or does not do.

      Remember, the internet exists to distribute content, on the web and elsewhere. A network, of any size, is pointless unless used to distribute information.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  49. Great timing by ankura · · Score: 1


    The world (and open source in particular) needs to be reminded that MS doesn't always win.

  50. Here's what I'd like to see instead by melted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A protocol built into browsers that would allow the site to request passwords from your local cache automatically and securely. This should confirm the identity of the site. Passwords should never travel over the wire. Hashes should go over the wire strongly encrypted.

    The benefits are:
    a. You only enter your password once. After this _browser_ asks you if you want the site to log you in automatically.
    b. This won't cost the web site using the service a dime to implement (if it's GPL/open source).
    c. This will decentralize password storage.
    d. This will force web sites to use encryption when doing authentication.
    e. This will prevent spoofing.
    f. This will probably be a lot more effective at killing Passport than posting on Slashdot.

    So there you have it, crypto gurus. Now go write a server piece and a toolbar/firefox plugin for it.

    1. Re:Here's what I'd like to see instead by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You mean kerberos?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  51. Multiple ids a bigger issue for me by Nkwe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    While I share the common concerns dealing with potential privacy, security, availability, and monopoly issues as most other posters there is a problem with passport that actually causes me more trouble then all of these on a regular basis.

    That problem is that passport assumes that I only have one identity. I have multiple, legitimate identities when I operate on the web - Especially when I operate on Microsoft's own sites.

    I work for a consulting firm which is a Microsoft partner. When I am using the web I may be using it as myself (individually); as an employee of the firm; or as a representative of one of our customers. If I need to register a support issue, download something from MSDN Downloads, or interact with Microsoft in any other way, I always have to be extra careful which passport I am currently using or logged into. If I am not careful I may incorrectly "charge" a download to the wrong party.

    The passport interface tries to keep your login "sticky" and does not readily indicate who you are logged in as. It is inconvenient to switch identities and you are never alerted when you bring up a web page that your Passport was just transmitted.

    If the Passport client would have popped up a dialog (or asked you in the interface) every time your identity was about to be sent something like "A web site is requesting your identity and information, which identity do you wish to send?", the whole thing would have been a lot more usable for me.

  52. Does anyone remember in 1999 when... by runamok1 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Microsoft lost Passport.com? As in they let the domain name expire?
    The Link on Cnet.

    An excerpt:
    A Linux user is taking credit for restoring service to Microsoft's Hotmail free email service, saying he paid a delinquent domain name registration fee that blocked access to some users over much of the Christmas weekend.
    and
    The lapse, which was first reported on the Internet news service Slashdot.org, was apparently caused when Microsoft's registration for the Passport.com domain name expired sometime Dec. 24, Chaney said. The Passport.com site verifies user identification and passwords for access to Hotmail and about 25 other services, according to Chaney.
    I just remembered this made me laugh when it happened.
    1. Re:Does anyone remember in 1999 when... by Dr+Cool · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny that Slashdot is referred to as a "news" service!

  53. Heh by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    Ironically, Christmas Day marked 5 years since we bailed them out on the domain name registration fee. A couple of months ago I got a second check for $500 from them since I never cashed the first one (they sent a letter earlier this year saying "hey, we $500 that belongs to you"). I never thought it would get very far past Hotmail, looks like I was right...

  54. Hmm would this be a dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it would appear so.

  55. Gee, no bias here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is abandoning one of its most controversial attempts to dominate the Internet

    "Dominate the Internet?" Uh, can we please tone down the rabid bias in the submissions, please?

    Is Gamespy trying to "dominate the Internet" by requiring you to log in to use any of its services? Give me a break! Microsoft was trying to remove the need for endless redundant passwords that we have to memorize for every website.

  56. good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think its great that passport failed because we all know microsoft would promote an insincere solution to the problem.

    I think the concept of a universal password is good. I'll give you an example: I have a paper with over 30 passwords to numerous sites I use. I'm constantly updating it. I can't remember it all.

    What is really needed is an open source solution with the entire industries backing. The solution should work on all platforms. There is a defenite need and it would be good for ecommerce in general.

    Either industry cooperates for better consumer security or the government should push one.

  57. Misleading Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Microsoft Loses Passport"

    This brings up the false hope that the entire company left the country and was unable to reenter the US.

  58. Can I get a Hallelujah? by clickster · · Score: 1

    "Can I get a Halle...um, hello?" *tap* *tap* *tap* "Is this thing on?" "I said, can I get a Hal...can I get...aw, screw it."

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  59. What does this prove? by MilenCent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Take note: Microsoft lost one, and it was not a small one.

    We tend to discount it now because it's been a couple of years, and Passport's decline has been long and slow, but we were all scared, once, of Passport and what it might mean for the web, with Microsoft's marketing might behind it, with managers' inflated opinion of MS and tendency to give them a pass to do whatever the hell they wanted with their computers.

    There's a tendency to view Microsoft as an unstoppable juggernaut, and this opinion is somewhat self-fulfilling. We percieve them as unstoppable, so why bother trying to resist? They may have the occaisional Microsoft Bob, after all, but... look at Windows!

    Microsoft loses more battles than you'd think, that's my only point.

  60. This isn't the first time... by BlastM · · Score: 1

    This isn't the first time Microsoft has lost Passport.com, although I doubt that a Linux user will return it to them this time.

  61. Why microsoft did it by rofthorax · · Score: 1

    Easy:

    1. Track markets.
    2. Sell information about emerging markets.
    3. Corner Markets.
    4. Eliminate competitors before their market can grow, by tracking its growth (appli AI to mined data).

    However, what do I know.. I don't work at Microsoft.. Besides, those who work at Microsoft don't work anywhere else, and that's why they work at Microsoft, so nobody else has them.. This is like DaBeers cementing over a beach full of diamonds (which is supposedly true).

    --
    Just say no to license servers!!
  62. whatever by bmajik · · Score: 1

    a) it's "morale" money

    b) there is no logical mapping between "departments" and the various beverage refrigerators, so while your suggestion is possible, i find it highly unlikely. Not to mention that a number of people have plainly stated that if the drinks go, they're leaving. Those people still come to work in the morning.

    c) i didn't mention my benefits being cut because they aren't. The stock purchase plan has been _modified_, and according to many peoples analysis, it is not as attractive as it used to be, although that is debateable. Vacation, healthcare, etc are all essentially unchanged from 4 years ago at least in how they affect me on a day to day and value basis. The biggest bneefits change that has been inconvenient deals with perscription drugs - that has been modified so that long term perscriptinos must be fulfilled via a specified mail order provider.

    So basically, unless you have something factual instead of speculation or 2nd (or 3rd or 4th or whatever) hand info, STFU.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:whatever by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

      so you admit I'm right and can only attack a typo? How sad. Were there any other genetic freaks on your short bus who had objections as well?

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    2. Re:whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think that with all those perks you guys would at least be able to write software that works for your boss...

  63. Didn't get what? by briancnorton · · Score: 1

    What was there to get? It's not up to consumers to "get" a tech concept, it's up to the developer to find a compelling reason for people to use theri technology. The entire concept of passport has no redeeming value for anybody except microsoft. I would have been more than happy to use a passport if it did SOMETHING for me.

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

  64. why?? by ste+aka+mustafa · · Score: 1

    as i wrote in my blog, i can't understand why this happens. it was a good deal! "you give us your personal data (like name, surname, address, credit card number, favourite color, name of your dog, and so on) and we store all this stuff on a MS SQL server". this is a good deal! so strange...