Richard Clarke on Microsoft security

hizzo writes "Richard Clarke, former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser, harshly critized Microsoft's security track record. 'Given their record in the security area, I don't know why anybody would buy from them.' He also called for some regulation of security for ISPs in addition to better industry self-regulation, such as disclosing QA practices and becoming more accountable for secure code. I wonder if anyone will finally start listening to him?"

Comments

Disclosing QA practices -

[Black Parrot]

"none"

Listening?

[ackthpt]

I wonder if anyone will finally start listening to him?"

I believe after his book that many people in Washington stopped listening to him.

"the war is really hard, uh, you see and we, uh, we're trying to make them all free and ... Karl, what's the buzzing noise?"
"Ignore it Mr. President, that's just a reporter refering to something Richard Clarke said."
"Who?"

another interview

[r84x]

Clarke has talked about cyber security before. To the IEEE, in fact. Read it here.

Re:not likely

[ackthpt]

With all the bribes Microsoft gives to politicians, it's no wonder why he is the former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser

Microsoft's bribes had nothing to do with that. He was competent, professional and honest. He didn't realize the crap Wolfowitz was pushing into the president's head until it was too late. Sadly, Rice sat there and lied to the Senate and still has been confirmed as the SoS.

As for Microsoft's bribing, they had a commendable record of trying to stay the heck out of politics for years, until it became evident that without greasing certain palms that Washington DC would turn on them. Now they make sure enough lucre is spread around Washington and they have many wagging tongues at their disposal and many ears to listen.

I listen to him...

[3Suns]

I wonder if anyone will finally start listening to him?

I watch his "Rockin' New Years Eve" program every year, and I expect lots of other people do too. I had no idea he was into computer security as well, though.

Re:Seriously

[TheWatchfulBabbler]

Richard Clarke is some kind of expert on computer security? Where are his credentials on the subject?

Well, he handled CIP during his time with NSC, and was cybersecurity czar after being shoved out of his counterterror role. 'Czars' of various sorts are, given their lack of power, perhaps the most ironically-named figures in Washington, but Clarke was certainly the best-informed computer security layman in the nation. So, yes, when the former Cybersecurity Czar specifically singles out Microsoft as a source of major vulnerabilities, I think he's qualified to pass judgment.

Re: not a politician

[McSpew]

My knowledge of Clarke isn't very good, did he politicise himself or was he politicised by the Bush administration ?

Clarke was a civil servant/bureacrat during his time working in the US government. He never ran for office and his service was never a sinecure in exchange for political contributions. He served in various capacities under three Presidents (Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger). It wasn't until he had spent time working for Bush the Younger that he began publicly criticizing anybody in the US government. He did so after resigning from government service.

Bush the Younger's entourage began to politicize Clarke and his work in an attempt to discredit him. It didn't work particularly well, although for some reason, US voters chose not to punish their President for his lousy track record on terror.

Anybody who has read Clarke's book can see for themselves that he is not some raving madman. He's a professional who has made a career out of imagining the worst, figuring out who's likely to do bad things, and then trying to get others to do what's necessary to prevent the bad things or capture/arrest/kill the bad people. His failure, if you can call it that, is that he was unable to get the current US President to take al Qaeda and the threat of International Terror seriously until after 9/11, and even then, the President was more worried about Saddam Hussein and Iraq than he was about Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden.

Re: not a politician

[Your Pal Dave]

Here's an interesting interview with Clarke which discusses some of this history. It's part of the background material for the Frontline documentary "The Man Who Knew" which is also viewable online.

Reading Clarke

[commodoresloat]

If you want a frightening read, you should pick up the January 2005 issue of the Atlantic, which has an article by Clarke that is supposed to be a voice from the future (Sept 11, 2011) -- assessing the war on terror ten years later. He has some chillingly realistic scenarios for massive terrorist attacks on the American homeland which start in July 2005 as I recall. Not only do the scenarios seem realistic; he also footnotes each one extensively, showing with evidence how realistic these ideas are.

The U.S. needs more people like Clarke in public service. Not because he spins a good yarn, but because he has consistently offered lucid and nonpartisan analysis of the terrorist threat throughout his career. It is shameful that rather than responding to his arguments the Bush Administration went into attack mode, and even more shameful that the Democrats were unwilling to make Bush's failure in the war on terrorism a bigger campaign issue.

Re: not a politician

[Doc Ruby]

He left in disgust because the Bush administration is criminally incompetent to protect us, though it will instantly blame people like Clarke for its failures. The administration is very competent at media manipulation and killing the messenger. Look at Clarke's recently declassified 1/25/2001 memo warning Rice about al "Qida". He documented (for internal, secret consumption) the steps taken in the 1990s to stop bin Laden, and the steps necessary to stop him permanently. The month before al Qaeda had been documented as attacking the USS Cole, but even that escalation wasn't enough to keep them on anyone else's radar at Bush HQ. Clarke "covered his ass" because his ass was right, and everyone else ignored him. You're just repeating the neocon spin, blaming Clarke with a smokescreen designed to cover the rest of the "team's" failure to protect us, or even admit we'd failed.

Re:Richard Clark is a liar

[saddino]

The only thing that Richard Clark [sic] ever did was approve flights for members of Osama bin LAden's family in the US out of the US and into Saudi Arabia shortly after the attacks.

Clarke's memo to Condoleezza Rice dated January 25, 2001 shows quite plainly that Clarke was urgently asking the White House to start moving on al Qaeda eight months before 9/11. Now that it has been declassified, you can see the actual memo here. [PDF link]

That doesn't look like "BS" to me. In fact, it suggests that "his record" shows a true concern in getting the Bush administration up to speed on what he felt was a huge threat. In the memo, he says "We urgently need such a Principals level review..." Rice finally held his requested meeting on September 4, 2001.

So what's the "only thing" he ever did, again?