Slashdot Mirror
BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security
securitas writes "In the second of two parts, the BBC's Stephen Cole of the technology show Click Online interviews Bill Gates about Windows, viruses, security, spam, 'trustworthy computing', Longhorn and being anti-competitive. Sample quote: 'Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are. That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.' Streaming media in Real format is also available. [Video: Broadband | Narrowband]
You can read the first half about the 'digital lifestyle' in Part 1: Bill Gates plots a Windows future. Here is the Slashdot discussion of the first part of the interview."
"Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there"
And he can?
It takes one to know one!
Bill Gates talking about secuity is like the corner whore talking about the evils of premarital sex.
"Certainly you can never underestimate children out there who can easily take advantage of the big flaws in our code."
I wonder if Billy would ever tell us something isn't a "top priority"? I can just imagine it:
"Yeah, stability, we aren't really keen on that right at the moment, actually that's way down the list."
Thanks Bill, but with an inbox full of virus I get the feeling your "top priority" isn't as "top" as we would like.
I like the way he sums up the Microsoft corporation and it's company culture:
"Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are."
Q: "did you underestimate the value of security?"
...
A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:
I'm not going to answer that. I mean, come on, we all know that Windows wasn't designed with security in mind. So, I tell you what, I'm going to turn your negative into a positive, like a good salesman.
Here, for a start, I'll get you to focus on the nasty people out there that are exploiting Microsoft software - they're the bad guys, ok, not us!
Next, I'll tell you about auto-update, and that millions of people are using it. You don't have to worry because Windows updates itself. It takes away the hassle, right? And doesn't it make you 'feel' safer?
And of course, Microsoft has marketed the fact that security is its business. Even if Microsoft software isn't secure, we like to give that impression.
Q: "Nevertheless, a lot of our viewers still say to us: 'Microsoft didn't take that threat seriously enough and we are having problems.'"
A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:
Ok, I don't want to answer that either, as it makes us look bad - and how can I refute something that's a fact?
Instead, I'll get you to focus (yet again) on the positive fact that Microsoft makes it easy to sit back and do nothing, letting Windows auto-update itself. Remember, Microsoft software is used because it's easy to use (not because it works).
I couldn't be bothered to read any further.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
"Microsoft Security" is an oxymoron.
If they cared about security (remember them saying that Windows XP was the most secure operating system ever?) they would have shipped it with the firewall on by default and most services off by default.
Why oh why did they think it was a good idea to have an RPC server on by default when there's probably less than 1% of users who would use the feature?
How many insecurities has Internet Explorer had since it was launched with XP? I lost count. Even now, there are still holes in there wide enough to drive a truck through but they are not patched. Microsoft want to keep things quiet until they get around to fixing the bugs, and they only fix the bugs when they see the problem being exploited in the wild.
And, thanks to Microsoft integrating the Internet Exploder engine so tightly into their OS, if a bug affects IE then it probably also affects Outlook, Outlook Express, MS Help and gawd knows what else.
This is security?
Ha!
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
OK, "security is top priority". As a security professional I think it's good that they've woken up.
However, I'd really like to know what are they going to DO about it, apart from the traditional "we'll train our programmers". This is a key question especially considering that they have millions of code lines written before security was any kind of priority.
I predict no radical changes to the number of discovered Microsoft software security flaws in the short term.
Ford: 'Quality is Job 1' Qwest: 'The Spirit of Service' Microsoft: 'trustworthy computing'
That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.
/. land.
An illuminating quote to choose because it is a complete non sequitur. And perhaps this isn't that obvious to everybody, even in sceptical
In reality, there is no requirement for Microsoft to trust the software on my machine in order for me to trust it. The two relationships are quite distinct. I may choose to trust software that Microsoft has never heard of. Conversely, I may distrust software that MS has endorsed.
The "trustworthy computing" soundbite has to be this vague because to pin down who is trusting whom to do what would immediately give the game away. The game is, of course, to encourage users to give up control of their PCs.
So you didn't see the Paxman' Gates interview a few years ago then? Whoever researched for Paxman should have been fired. The questions were so vague that Gates could have said anything and it seemed like an answer. Secondly, Paxman (great though he is) could't really full understand the answers and so wasn't in a position to say "you are just avoiding the question" because he wasn't sure enough.
Honestly, Paxman is brilliant, but I could have interviewed Bill Gates better than that. (and that's saying something)
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
The problem with microsoft security is not what they are doing but more how they are doing it. Security needs to be #1 in design. Then you build features on top of that (Without breaking security). For example some application want to run as administrator even if they don't need too (Like word perfect spell check) I can understand installing applications as administrator but administrator should not be allowed to run these application. Windows need a redesign for high security not plugging the holes in the existing version. Expect there will be holes in your OS but make it to minimize the dammage. Windows is like Setting up a Linux Apache Server where the user access it runs on is Root not Nobody. So if someone breaks into Apache then they get this limited access where they could at worse mess up and steel data from the website. But with the windows settings all services are under administrator when someone breaks in they have full access to the system.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In comparison, right from the outset, open source desktop platforms and applications have relied almost wholly on closing the infectable vectors, the exploited vulnerabilities used by malware, as quickly as possible.
Read the following Usenet thread from 2000 that covers the argument in detail. David Harley and Robert Moir are two Anitvirus industry leaders. It also includes the prediction that Microsoft would eventually get into the antivirus industry.
If you have a spare hour, listen to Dr Dobbs' technetcast:
Hey
:)
Can't we organize a Slashdot interview of BG? (titter
Both Bill Gates and drug dealers
Secondly, if they truly were the best, they wouldn't have all those security problems, now would they?
This is my ongoing number one gripe about Microsoft: they cannot admit their mistakes. Though every OS has security issues, MS is practically the only one that keeps lying about it. Technical quality aside, I'll rather deal with honest people and honest businesses.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.