Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Silently Backs Favorable Presentation at RSA
lildogie writes "Two researchers, from the Florida Institute of Technology and Boston-based Security Innovation Inc., 'surprised the audience at a computer-security convention last month with their finding that a version of Microsoft Windows was more secure than a competing Linux operating system' according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 'This week, the researchers released their finished report, and it included another surprise: Microsoft was funding the project all along.' When will they ever learn?"
MS or researchers. One wins $$ and one wins $$...
People will say whatever you want if you give them lots of money? Impudence!
These people make me sick. It's stories like this that make me realize why Microsoft is the object of so much hate. It's not because of their products, it's all about how they deal with competition.
I like Active Directory and a few other Microsoft creations, and I even have an MCSE. Hell, Exchange has a good feature-set; if it would just stay up and be easier to manage it'd be a great product too.
What I can't abide is being told that IIS is superior to Apache, and that Windows is more secure than "Linux". They send out these teams of spin-doctors with big bankrolls and try and take over the world using FUD. It's total crap.
When do you see Linus doing this? Steve Jobs? Not very often. There are occasional comments, but nothing like this steady stream of trash that comes out of Redmond. I grow tired of it, and my reasons for disliking the company have never been more clear.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
The article should be from the 'well-duh' dept.
"They say they had "complete editorial control over all research and analysis" involved in the project."
It was later learned that Microsoft "had complete financial control over all employees involved in the project."
Anyway, is Microsoft trying to develop a pattern here? Every time windows beats linux it's from a source microsoft paid.
If you want your product to be found safe or secure of what ever, you fund reasearch. Cell phone compinies fund research to show that they are safe, but a recently publish study buy a guy from University of Washington proved otherwise.
All these research by MS funded institutions and researchers, Alexis de Tocqueville etc... It's to predictable. Do people actually believe anything they're saying? At least this time they didn't claim Torvalds isn't the father of Linux.
"Our own requirement for the methodology was that it had to be very open and transparent." "However, during their Feb. 16 presentation at the RSA Conference, Thompson and fellow researcher Richard Ford of the Florida Institute of Technology did not mention that one of the subjects of their research was the one funding the project." Huh. As noted already, this reeks of bias. Even if the results are perfectly accurate (and the FUD surrounding the notion that "Linux" is insecure rather than a specific distro means that they aren't) suspicions are aroused irrespectively.
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
...and what a bad move. Anyone with half a brain would have looked for independent funding, separate from both sides to put their methodology beyond doubt. Instead they sold their concept to Microsoft, unbelievable naivette.
But the proof of the pudding should be in the eating: apply their methodology. Does it pan out for other Linux distributions/XP upgrades? If the methodology stands, it will be a great service to the debate.
It's just a damn shame the politics of the situation mean that probably won't happen.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
...to consider the possibility that if the study was unfavorable to Microsoft's position they would simply have pulled the plug and thrown away the results? Unless you can find fault with the study itself, there is nothing wrong with Microsoft financing studies which show Microsoft in a favorable way as long as the study itelf was legitimate. I realize this may be a difficult concept for many /.'ers to grasp but give it a shot.
Our other top story today: President Bush's approval rating is higher than ever, mainly because consumers are very happy about rising oil and gas prices ... reports FOX News.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
...but I wouldn't put it past them to test ten and use the one that makes them look best.
You guys are too skeptical. So MS paid for the study that found them to be safer. That doesn't mean a thing. Seriously, give up the paranoia and trust your fellow human beings for a change. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to draw up plans for a toll both. A nice fellow in a trenchcoat just sold me the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.
When will they ever learn?
When will who learn? Microsoft? They already did. They learned that funding reasearch groups is a great way to portray themselfs as they see fit and at the say time spread FUD about linux and other competitors.
Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
Linux vulnerabilities tend to get reported before there's an exploit, even when the "vulnerability" is very minor. Windows vulnerabilities only come to light when there is an exploit, because no one can see the code.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
So has anyone allready taken this to the test ?
As long as there is no counterevidence (besides the obvious evidence from everyday use of both OS's), why allready pass a judgement? (Ok, this -is- Slashdot, I'm not -too- new here)
Allthough I find it dubious, to say the least, to have MS funding this research ; I still think that they should at least try to reproduce the results , and investigate what might have been left out (on purpose) to skew the outcome.
The point is that many people who matter will see this paper, they are busy people they will read the headlines and the conclusions, they won't even notice that there is something about funding. These peole are IT directors and the like.
Yes: we geeks say that the report is a joke because of the way that it is funded; learn that the joke is on us since we dismiss this paper as irrelevant when it is opinion forming.
Since I work with a security company, methodologies used says that a security company should not take any sides. But since this is Microsoft they should have made their reseach with a tripple verification with some company like IBM, CGI and [insert security company here].
No sig for now.
If you really take as gospel truth everything you believe about Linux, without demanding proof, why are you worrying about whatever trick makes the Windows numbers look good?
Let Microsoft open the source code for their operating system and then let us see who has more reported vulnerabilities!
Ouch! The truth hurts!
But at the time they weren't too worried about the long term growing threat, they were worried about the pending case. Now the big picture nightmare is being realized on all fronts and they need to go down in flames shooting off ridiculous attacks/defenses that they paid for because the net result will probably be in the black, at least beyond the slashdotters, of keeping more people from moving to linux than they drive toward linux because those people found out that MS paid for the study and yada yada. Count on that MS reads the likes of Slashdot and give them a little benefit of the doubt -- not with their ethics, but with their business sense. In this case I think the ensuing flood of "when will they learn" posts will be overstated. I should note however that MSFT has had a pretty disappointing performance and that the public is catching onto the hole they're in, and not every investor is going to stay on the ship just because Microsoft is selling video games.
But then I think, I am a Debian addict and I am defending MS's business decisions, and then I think I've been up all night perfecting my porn site and I'm beginning to hallucinate. I don't know where I'm going with this... Back to the porn!
The conclusion has to be that selling IT snake oil is an even better bet than becoming an aromatherapist or an urban shaman. No-one is likely to be able to prove you wrong, and you can continue to be paid by your vendor of choice secure in the knowledge that most publications will not print anything that upsets their biggest advertisers, and that even if a few minority interests notice the connection between your conclusions and your paycheck, the wider world probably won't notice.
The system will only fall apart if academic institutions get together and pass some suitably tough rules on the ethics of product comparisons - and history suggests that that the first one under the new rules will be a study of the aerodynamics of different breeds of pigs.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I was handed this article from a retired researcher that was supervising me on my wifi research. http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/w akeupcall01.html
I'm a researcher and on the editorial board of an academic journal. The cardinal rule is you disclose your funding or any conflict of interest *every* time and *any* time you make a presentation or write a paper. Such disclosures are essential in allowing others to evaluate the possibility of bias and are accepted practice.
Academia requires funding, and researchers are usually funded. Funding agencies always have a perspective (even when you're funded by the NIH or NSF or other federal agencies). The agreement that the researcher has intellectual control of the research process, data, and the right to publish is key, especially with commercial sponsors (e.g., MS, pharma companies).
These folks may well have had an agreement ensuring them that they could find what they found and freely report it. And if they reported it, others can appraise the quality of their methods. I haven't read the study, so I don't know if the comparison was fair. Did their support from MS include someone sending them specially-configured systems, for example?
But I do know that they should have known better than not to disclose the funding source in their first talk.
The worst thing MS ever did for itself is admit to competing against GNU/Linux.
They're just spreading the word further, to people who may never known of alternatives. Anyone who's semi-competent can then clarify the situation.
Keep it up Microsoft. Remember, it's a case of when - not if. You're helping to bring that date closer =)
http://blogs.redhat.com/people/archive/000201.html links you to the raw downloadable data on how well Red Hat really did and a trivial Perl script to analyse it and drop out all sorts of metrics.
-- Mark Cox, http://www.awe.com/mark/
Okay, who didn't see this coming?
Only those, who follow enough news to "know" M$ tactics.
Unfortunately, there are enough middle/upper management people who don't look into matters that closely and are simply "swayed" by knowing that M$ has market dominance -- and just tell themselves that "M$ wouldn't have it if their products sucked so badly, now would they?".
As long as there is enough ignorance or even indifference on (non-technical) management levels, M$ *will* see benefits from each time they're doing that.
(Besides, there is also the issue that you can't really go on to sue them for bad security if so many security companies openly tell of Microsoft's great security and the lack of security in competing OS's.).
The fact is, M$ OS's aren't "safe", and neither is a run-of-the-mill linux installation. Both need updates and security-conscious people administrating them to keep them shut. I've had people break into my (linux) servers once or twice , and managed to evict the attackers both times and plugged the holes they used that I had been unaware of before - but by now there are so many software packages that it's hard to keep track of security issues in all of them.
But, yes, despite those experiences, I'd still run a linux box over a windows box any day, because I think that in general my linux box is safer.
It's remarkably stupid of Microsoft to continue to fund studies slamming Linux. The choice between operating systems is not one that people make on the basis of slight opinion. They follow trends, and technological trends are influenced by people who understand the impact of their choices.
Linux has been the choice of the leading edge for several years, it is well-established as the choice for the early adopter, and it's now starting to become a serious option for the mass market.
The mass market listens to the early adopters, the early adopters listen to the pioneers. That's the way it goes with technology, and that's why marketing only helps when products are otherwise equal.
Microsoft should work on the real problem - the low quality of their products, and the real gap between their outdated expensive proprietary software and the commodity alternatives - rather than try to influence the market with propaganda. Unless, of course, they have come to the realisation that they cannot fix the problems.
It will be newsworthy when a study finds that Microsoft has made a better product than the community, and when the study is both independent and accurate.
If Apple can do it, why can't you guys at Microsoft? It's just software... infinitely plastic, and you are so smart, so rich...
Nope. They won't do it. They just don't get it. They will continue to bitch and bluster and bluff until it's too late.
It's a shame. All that talent, all that money, and all they can do is pay people to lie.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
And since they're claiming that this is a "Linux vs. Windows" research paper, the fact that they're looking at using the boxes as web servers makes it seem more like they're comparing Apache/PHP/MySQL to IIS/ASP/SQL...
I'm rather new to the Linux world, but isn't that like looking at the engine of a car, and saying the doors don't work?
- Jack
They're talking about "Linux", and its a kernel. RedHat, Fedora, Debian, Slack, Suse... these are OSes!
So, if you get a sloppy distro (wont cite any names to avoid flames) and compare it to Windows, you can say that distro is more insecure than Windows. But you cant say "Linux is more insecure than Windows"!
If they really want to compare Linux to Windows, well... then lets compare the kernels, Linux X NT! Witch one is more secure? Has more bugs? Heh, that's something I'd like to see.
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Right there is the flaw in your statement. You're correct in that no one in the field would believe that a Microsoft OS is more secure than a hardened version of Linux. On the same token though, any reputable person in the field would agree that a hardened version of Microsoft's OS is not any less secure than a hardened version of Linux.
Speaking as an academic, it is somewhat disappointing to see this kind of spin besmirch the ivory tower of a university institution
What are you talking about? Academic research is funded by corporatations all the time. Why is this any different? Just because they were funded by Microsoft does not immediately mean the research is flawed or skewed. Have you reviewed the paper? My guess is not. Before making straw man arguments make sure you have all the facts.
I'm not trying to make a claim for or against the findings - only that, with the amount of information we have about the research; at this time, these kinds of statements, "These sell outs always surprise me," are completely unwarranted.
Now everyone reading TFA knows better, because you already know about /.. How about the millions of people using Windows that were trying to ceonvert away because of security reasons, who dont know about /.. Until I switched from Windows to Mandrake Linux - I never even heard of this place, much less cared about which was more secure - however now I know better, my wife OTOH, doesn't - nor doesn't care to either I might add.
Stories like this are just like SPAM, the reason they keep happening is because it WORKS. Like it or not, its making an effect somewhere with someone and Redmond knows it.
Sure, their products suck. But on its own, that wouldn't be a problem, because people would be free to choose the best product for the job. MS would be under the same commercial imperatives as anyone else: make good products, or die.
But their business practices suck too. Because of that, the market isn't free to pick the best products.
They pay people (individuals, dealers, companies, governments) to use their sucky products, by offering discounts and other incentives -- even giving them away if necessary. They pay competitors not to make competing products, by buying them off. They pay masses in marketing to make their products seem less sucky. They pay lawyers to find ways to prevent competitors making better products. They pay dealers and distributors not to bundle competitors' products. They pay lawmakers to prevent competitors being able to compete fairly. They pay training companies to ensure that there's more expertise for their products. They pay their own developers to break competing products in various underhand ways. They pay anything they can to support their products.
And so, ultimately, we all pay...
In short, it's their immoral and illegal business practices which make their dodgy products popular. Prevent those, and their products wouldn't be a problem.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
When those "researchers" (I'd rather call them hacks) presented their methology to Microsoft and asked for funding, it was pretty much a no-brainer for MS to do so, as the metrics were clearly in their favour. Take the number of security reports, for example. The number of errors reported does not only depend on the number of errors in the system, it also depends on how available the means for finding these errors are. Compared to the number of people being able to do so witht he Linux sources, fewer people have access to Windows Server 2003 source code. That'd be one factor. To that you should add that Microsoft can decide whether or not they want to make a security problem public. It would not surprise me at all if they didn't fix a few of those holes silently with their updates.
Also, the compared systems are not equal in scope. Redhat's Enterprise Linux offers a whole lot more software than a 'naked' Windows Server 2003, and thus a lot more potential for security problems. If you coompared Windows Server 2003 with a rather bare Linux setup with no frills that offers similar functionality, then you could compare those systems.
In other words, the results of the study were already clear before the "researchers" started it. MS had nothing to lose because they could very much assume the results would be favourable to them. They didn't even need to put any pressure at all on those "researchers".
and not owning a PC, I used to really dig this kind of stuff. I still don't own a PC, but my two roommates do, and the more I see these kinds of things on /. the more it reads like sour grapes from the linux community.
When one of my roommates got a Dell recently, I took a look at his XP before connecting to the internet. A few clicks and the firewall was on. A few more clicks and his anti-virus software was up and running. After connecting to our LAN I downloaded Firefox, and for the past month and a half he has had no problems with any security issues on his machine. No, Windows is inherently not as secure as linux, but if you know what you are doing, you will be able to set up your Wintel box to be decently safe and hacker-free.
The downside is, of course, that Microsoft could do a lot more to make Windows more secure out of the box. But Linux (and the Linux community) has a long way to go before the average wal-sumer will feel comfortable using Linux machines, much less knowing how to run them.
http://www.walkingtaco.com
Thompson said he and Ford developed the methodology on their own and submitted a proposal to Microsoft last year. He declined to say how much Microsoft paid to fund the research, but he said the company didn't have a say in the methodology.
I'm surprised that this kind of research would get so much attention . . . reading between the lines, the research proposal was written to attract money from Microsoft. This implies an immediate conflict of interest . . . the research proposal and methodology were very possibly skewed in favor of Microsoft from the very beginning to garner Microsoft's favor and money.
This is like writing a research proposal on the effects of smoking to get money from Phillip Morris. Of course such a proposal won't be written is such a way as to build a link between smoking and cancer . . . it would likely be written to imply that the research may refute the link between smoking and cancer. Skew the proposal in favor of the benefactor and one is more likely to get money . . .
The whole process needs to be more transparent . . and all of the facts need to be issued before presenting . . . otherwise this is just irresponsible research.
Test #1 Intruders are capable of taking control over the computer. Results: Linux: The system was finally hacked (after leaving the root/administrative account w/o a password, which seems fair to windows) Windows: The system crashed... nobody was able to take control! Analysis and conclusions: Windows is much better!
C'mon now... We found faults with the methodology to begin with. The metrics they're using are completely useless for determining the relative security of an OS- they're using time to release fixes for reported exploits.
Now...
1) Microsoft waits until they actually have a fix or is forced to report/acknowledge an exploit when someone else makes an issue of it.
2) Microsoft doesn't report any other exploits that they know about and doesn't go auditing for potential issues either.
3) The Open Source community as a whole is rather paranoid compared to Microsoft when it comes to overall security so they report anything that might be a potential problem.
Given the above items, that isn't a terribly good metric for determining overall security, nor is determining how secure the OS is by the reported issues. Overall security is a measure of how many issues, how severe, how exploitable, and how well they get fixed. Microsoft consistently flunks in the overall issues (they have more than we do, we just don't find out about them until after the fact...), severity, and fixing arenas.
Combine this all with the facts that Microsoft maintained editorial AND financial control of the entire "study" and it all becomes a farce and worthy of the derision we're all heaping up on it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The numbers are correct, however as they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The problems with the study:
1. The researchers were dealing with vendor-supplied patches of RHEL3.0 and Windows 2003 Server only. If a Linux vulnerability was released, and then patched by the author on the same day, but Red Had didn't release an update until 7 days later, this would be counted as a week. (Which may or may not be the correct way to view it - it's an 'apples-to-apples' comparison of a distinct 'apples-to-oranges' problem.)
2. the researchers didn't take into account the severity of the vulnerabilities. A local DOS vulnerability was given the same weight as one that offered remote administrative priveleges. The RHEL vulnerabilities were typically not as severe as the Windows ones.
3. the researchers didn't take into account whether the vulnerabilities were theoretical or not. A vulnerability that was theoretical was given the same weight as one which was proven real. All of the vulnerabilities in Windows were real, while the same is not true of RHEL.
4. The researchers didn't take into account the fact that RHEL has *much* more software included with it than Windows Server 2003. More software == more vulnerabilities.
5. The study dealt with "public disclosures" - security researchers typically work with the vendors, giving them some period of time to produce a fix before releasing the advisory; again, as the "vendor" in OSS is the program author, and not Red Hat, MS has a distinct advantage in "number of days to fix", as they can have a fix ready before the advisory is released, while Red Hat usually cannot. (This ties back into point #1 above.)
...and found it lacking in several respects.
Some background. I work as an industry analyst for a major technology research firm you've heard of. We were asked to review the methodology and findings of the report prior to its publication---i.e., at the beginning of March.
Things I commented on, among others:
In short, the authors' claims that the methodology was "transparent" and "reproducible" are unfounded, since there is no way to inspect the data underlying their conclusions. I predicted they'd be heavily flamed by the open source crowd, and that they ought to make some changes to the report before they went public. They didn't, other than to acknowledge (but not address) a few of the methodological issues we raised.
It's really too bad, since I really liked their emphasis on "role-based" analysis; that is, look at specific "stack" for a particular use case, for example web serving. The methdology paper, in case you haven't read it, is worthwhile reading. But all that good work is sullied since we can't see the data.
Windows Server benefited in part from Microsoft's reduction of security vulnerabilities in the latest version of the software -- with 52 reported vulnerabilities for the year, compared with 132 vulnerabilities for the Linux version, according to the report. The researchers also calculated an average of about 31 days of risk for the Windows software in 2004, compared with an average of about 70 days of risk for the Linux version.
Yeah but how many people get to review M$ code and discover new vulnerabilities? Did they account for that in their bug count methodology?
It's all about limiting the avenues of attack.
I run Ubuntu, you cannot crack my machine with any worm because it does not have any ports open to you.
I can put that machine on a DSL connection and read
You believe that no matter how much care is put into designing an app, security holes will magically appear once enough people start using it.Nope. That's usually a sign of a "buffer overflow".Nice. You keep confusing software that crashes with security holes.
Whatever.And no mention of Browser Helper Objects of how IE runs with unreasonably high access rights.Well, you certainly can't argue with that "logic".
All I can do is to point out that all security issues are not the same.
#1. Remote exploit that gives root/admin rights.
#2. Remote exploit that gives non-root access.
#3. Local exploit that gives root/admin rights.
Way way way down the list is "Exploit that crashes the app". The worst you can get from that is a DoS attack.
But to you, all issues are the same. If FireFox crashes, that's just as bad as the sasser worm on Windows.
Sure, it may be impossible TODAY for someone to crack my Ubuntu desktop
You instruct them to ask the questions that reveal the 10 features that favour your product A.
That's it. Simple as that. No lying required. This is the reason why you don't even bother to read a report that is financed by one of the product companies.
Now, the reasons why Security Innovation have chosen the two measures that you mention is quite obvious. It favours secret development over open development. Yet these factors do not have a direct relationship to how secure an operating system is. They are metrics that are at least one step removed. A direct metric would be for example, looking how often real systems are successfully attacked.
#1. They didn't even evaluate the risk of each item they were counting AS IT PERTAINED TO THEIR DEFAUL INSTALL.
... NOT the days until a fix was publicly available.
.pdf reader that goes unpatched for a year (after being posted on public mailing list) is (by their calculations) WORSE than a remote root attack against the web server that is open on port 80 but which has a patch from Red Hat within a week (and a publicly available patch posted with the vulnerability announcment).
#2. They ONLY counted the days until Red Hat had a fix
So, a local exploit in a
WTF?!?
Or, rather, Microsoft can SIT on a vulnerability notification for YEARS and release the patch the SAME DAY they publicly admit the vulnerability and they will STILL get a better rating than the Apache vulnerability in the previous example.
There was NO research done for this "study". It is pure bullshit. Counting patches is MEANINGLESS when it comes to security.
By their "logic", MS-DOS 6.2 is even more secure than Win2003.
MS recently announced that it would be giving the US military 30 days to apply security patches before releasing them (and disclosing them) to the public.
So now MS will have 30 days exposure for every security breach.
I look forward to a new report from the same guys next year showing these results.
Oh, I forgot, they won't be able to get the funding from MS.
- AndrewN
What "test"? The whole point is how their "methods" are flawed.Here's the "counterevidence":
Scenario: You are running a web site on Linux. All ports are blocked by the default firewall except port 80.
Is a local exploit in a
By their "methods", the
They counted the vulnerabilities (X).
They added together all the days between announcement of vulnerability and Red Hat releasing a patch (Y).
They divided Y by X to find the average time between vulnerability announcement and Red Hat releasing a patch.
They did the same for Win2003.
Then they announced that Win2003 was more secure because it had let time between public announcement and public patch.
That is all they based this "report" on.
Their methodology is fundamentally flawed. You can do the same arithmetic they did and get the same results, but that does not mean that their findings are valid.
If magical elves decided to hide bad code in Linux and if they had CVS access and if they wrote it right and if no one noticed
HOW is someone going to get that data into my OO.o document? Hmmmmmm?
Magic? I don't think so.
Why don't you skip the "if"s and start focusing on the "How"s?
Security doesn't rely upon "if". It relies upon "how".
Faith, from Latin fides, trust or loyalty, need not be blind. The authors of this study seemed to be keeping faith with the principles of honest analysis, they worked with universities and stated their biases (one Windows practitioner and the other a Linux expert) up front. I have a Linux bias, so an apparently honest analysis that challenged my presumption was intriguing.
They neglected to mention that they were funded by Microsoft, which betrayed the faith I had put in their honesty. I do not have time to carry out a rigorous analysis comparing Linux and Windows security, I have to rely on shortcuts of reputation and apparent honesty. Studies that show Linux is more secure generally state their biases up front, studies showing a Microsoft advantage go against my experience and unfailingly turn out to have been covertly funded by Microsoft. So my standard of proof is much higher for studies that support Microsoft.
I certainly don't mean to let MSFT off the hook
for such brazen (and repeatedly brazen) self-
promotion. MSFT is a convicted (but yet to truly
be punished) monopolist corporation that cannot
be trusted to build a secure OS or Apps Suite,
let alone to "play fairly" in the marketplace.
But, hey folks, the 800 pound gorilla from Redmond
is not alone in these tactics. The pharmacutical
industry pulls the same kinds of tactics when it
comes to testing (and promoting) their drugs, and
they have (apparently) far more pull with the
government than MSFT does. How else to explain
their pricing structure in the USA (vs everywhere
else), let alone the "Pharamacutical Industry
Welfare Act of 2004" AKA the Medicare Prescription
Drug Plan? Pretty neat. The drug companies pay
the FDA for acceptance, and the government gives
them huge tax breaks for the flood of advertising
directed not at the doctors, but at the patients
in order to build demand for their product.
Then we also have the current regime in power that
is spending millions of taxpayer dollars for "public
education" regarding the "crisis" in Social Security.
It is nothing less than propaganda; it is illegal;
and they are getting away with it. Who, exactly,
will be the real beneficiaries of pension privatization?
The financial institutions on Wall Street that will
dictate where Trillions of dollars will be invested,
and like today, they will not be on the hook for
bad investment decisions, because they will still
get their management fees and commissions. But
John Q. Public and Joe Sixpack will be living in
cardboard boxes if the rosy projections go south.
There is no chance in Hades that the regime now
in power will recind their lame excuse for a
penalty against the Redmond monopolist, just like
there is no chance in Hades that Dubya will turn
into a populist, let alone a real "compassionate"
conservative. He has effectively exposed the
neo-cons true agenda, which is to "starve the beast"
called the social safety net, no matter what the cost.
with their methodology, the proof of the pudding is this:
all MS has to do to make their OS more secure as part of their 'trustworthy computing' is to announce the service pack and what it fixes one day *after* releasing the said service pack as the study uses a metric called 'days of risk'. can't beat the resulting -ve 'days of risk' unless the competitors did some serious time travelling to issue the patch. sure seems that if you actually make early disclosures it counts against you. some trustworthiness.
If they did reveal their funding during the RSA presentation .......
t linux17.html
.... How about we do some of our 'research' to find out who has better security then?"
r estrictedtomicrosoftsapprovalandallfindingswillreq uiremicrosoftsapprovalbeforebeingpublished"
... Get The Facts ... you find that Windows isn't as bad as the urban myths would have you believe. It's actually more secure than Linux." smiles at audience.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/212384_msf
Linux vs Windows Security
(a Microsoft production)
Thompson and Ford walk on onto the stage.
Thompson: "My name is Thompson and I love Microsoft."
Ford: "My name is Ford and I love Linux. Hey Thompson, how many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a light bulb?"
T: "I don't know, Ford. How many Microsoft programmers DOES it take to change a light bulb?"
F: "None. They just declare dark to be the new standard. Ha ha!"
T: "Ha
F: "Sure. I am sure that Linux will have better security than Windows, after all, I am Ford and I love Linux."
T: "Because we are security professionals, we will choose only the default settings of both systems. Is that okay with you my fellow security expert?"
F: "Yes, we should only choose the default settings because we are security experts."
T: "And then we should count how many security patches were released and how long it took to release them (after the public announcement)."
F: "That sounds like a very reasonable and fair way to determine who has better security. We should only count the days and number of vulnerabilities. We should under no circumstances do any comparision of vulnerabilities or determination of actual attack vulnerability. That would be very difficult and I'm only a Ph.D."
T: "Yes, that would be very difficult for I also am only a Ph.D. But even this limited scope will be expensive. In only we had someone willing to fund our 'research'."
Bill Gates walks on stage with a huge cardboard check.
BG: "Hi! I heard about your 'independant' 'research' project and I thought I'd give you some money to fund it. But please do not feel that this in any way obligates you to find that Windows is superior in every way to Linux. byacceptingthischeckyouagreethatallfindingswillbe
F: "What was that last part?"
T: "Never mind. It can't be that important if he said it so fast. How about we make a small wager on the outcome of this Microsoft funded research program concerning Linux vs Windows security?"
F: "Of course. I will bet $20 that Linux is more secure than Windows. After all, I hardly see how Linux can lose a security comparision in a Microsoft funded 'research' program." winks at audience.
T: "I agree. This 'research' will be completely independant and verifiable."
F: "On with the counting!"
Both of them pull out calculators and furiously punch buttons.
F: "Oh the shame! How could I ever be so WRONG?!?"
T: "It does seem that our Microsoft funded 'research' has determined that Win2003 is more secure than Linux."
F: "Yes, the fact that Red Hat took longer to release patches for publicly known vulnerabilities in software included in our default installations does show that I was wrong about Linux being superior to Win2003."
T: "Once again, when you
This has been a dramatization of an actual event.
We would like to thank Microsoft and Bill Gates for their generous contribution without which this "research" could not have been possible (it costs a lot of money looking up vulnerabilities on a website).
We get long discussions about TCO and security and others but never about what we are allowed to do with the software.
The problem with freedom is that it's difficult to explain to people that never experienced it. As the old joke goes when the american explained to the russian that in the USA you can criticize the president as much as you like the russian replied: you can criticize the american president in Soviet Russia as well, there's no restrictions on that.
I applaud the university for this study. Academic research is all about how to get more funding. This study shows they have been taught well. Getting more funding is more important than the study itself. I see follow up studies.
But, hey folks, the 800 pound gorilla from Redmond is not alone in these tactics. The pharmacutical industry pulls the same kinds of tactics when it comes to testing (and promoting) their drugs, and they have (apparently) far more pull with the government than MSFT does.
So this it the *everybody else does it* defense? Unless the appeal succeeds, Bernie Ebbers is going to jail, and Bill should be his cellmate. Microsoft is a convicted abusive monopolist and is held to higher standards than normal companies that have real competition. Funding a self-serving survey/study like that is a slap in the face to the DOJ, not to mention it being completely dishonest and opposed to the welfare of consumers. Any company that can be proven to be lying during a trial (perjury), as Microsoft was, and still get off without a penalty is far more powerful than any drug company.