Slashdot Mirror
MS Invites Security Questions
daria42 writes "Microsoft is inviting ZDNet readers to submit security-related questions online to a team of Microsoft security gurus. Microsoft's Ben English and his team will take questions online until the 30th of May. A selection of questions and answers will be published by ZDNet starting from the 6th of June. Submit your questions starting now!"
Why does microsoft not eat it's own dogfood? As a network administrator
I'm contstatly struggling with rights on workstations. I know that MS
gives admin right to all of it's own users. (I live in seattle I've seen
it.) But I can think of no security hole larger then giving out rights
to users who *SHOULD* not need them.
There is a laundry list of applications written *by* Microsoft that do
not work properly without additional rights.
This has been true sense NT 3.51. How did this happen? Upgrading to
longhorn it not a soulution. If I worked for Microsoft this would be
my first priority. Take away rights, fix existing applications.
"think of it as evolution in action"
My Question
Why don't you open up your source? I have an analogy to Open and Closed source:
With closed source, you are in a room full of razor blades everywhere and you are blindfolded. With Open Source, you are in a room full of razor blades everywhere and you are NOT blindfolded, so you can see where the exit is and perhaps avoid getting too cut up.
Which is really safer, closed or open source? Would you rather be blindfolded?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Guarenteed question. Answer: According to many studies that we've funded; yes.
"selection"? ;P
One that hath name thou can not otter
Almost EVERY website that deals with security have commented on M$FT and their security. That would be a good place for Mr.Ben English to start. Not to troll, but I think this is just another PR stunt by M$FT!
It would be nice to see the questions that don't get answered. It would be interesting to see if some questions get glossed over or ignored because of some inherant design flaw.
Maybe someoen would make a lost of all the questions and group all the simular ones together in order to create somethign like this. I guess microsoft is feeling the heat from other vendors stating that microsoft isn't as secure as thier products.
They will ignore everything and give generic answers to worthless questions such as "how do I secure my home computer". The answer will probably be something like "use the microsoft firewall and the microsoft anti-spyware program, and a microsoft antivirus program on your geniuine microsoft windowxs xp operating system".
Nothing to see here, move along.
a selection ...
translation
easily answered questions made up or planted by microsoft employs. so they dont have to answer the hard hitting questions.
"When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
I'm sure they will just beat around the bush like they always do. Gates's arrogance will trickle off.
1) Why can't you get software out the door that doesn't contain security flaws that you will be spending the next 6 years trying to fix, and still not get it right?
2) Word association: Microsoft -> buffer overflow.
3) Do you understand the concept of "Deny All Except" or has it ever been mentioned to you?
4) Do the 1 million monkeys Douglas Adams referred to work in Redmond?
5) Why is Bill Gates such an ass?
6) Who will protect us from Microsoft?
Ok. So it was more than one question. But one wasn't technically a question.
Come on, does anyone really think that Microsoft is going to select any of the tough questions that they really don't want to address? This is a sham. It gives them a way to say that they responded to users concerns, when in reality they will pick and choose things that can make them look good or give them a chance to attack open source. The more people who participate in this sham the more it servers their purposes.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
How can you be betraying your feduciary responsibilities to shareholders by delaying products in the name of security, which history has proven that your corporate customers don't give a damn about anyway.
To avoid shareholder lawsuits of you not acting in what has historically been shown to be the best for your shareholders, why don't you return to your security-be-damned buggy strategy and return your stock to the glorious heights it once held?
Has ZDNET given up even the pretense of being a tech magazine? Have they finally embraced the fact that they are nothing more then a thinly veiled publicity arm of Microsoft?
Where are the real journalists asking the tough questions to the executives of MS and other tech firms. Instead they invite questions from the public there the "experts" will pick the softballs and spew on an on about how safe, secure and super-duper-keen-nifty windows is compared to that communist linux.
evil is as evil does
Microsoft is full of brilliants people with good ideas and good intentions.
However other forces within the company are sometimes (some will argue always) taking over. If the suits decide that they prefer more features over less bugs, or if they set impossible deadlines, good peoples aren't enough.
Microsoft apparently has fine-grained access, rights and permissions built into WindowsXP. Where are the tools to manage those permissions?
By the way - HOME users need those tools, too. They would (could) go a long way to preventing zombification.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
Not to defend MS, but that's trolling. "Security" wasn't a high priority in the beginning because it didn't exist as a highly important factor until like 1999. XP is based on 2000 which is based on NT 4.0 which is based on NT 3.51. There's no way they could have forseen security being as important to the computer world as it is now. Granted, it took them a bit to realize it, but they can't change the entire NT codebase without releasing a new OS, which they're doing. SP2 is about all they can do without making fundamental changes.
Why am I defending MS? I don't like them..
That would be "the truth". The truth about Microsoft is unparalleled bashing grounds.
--
make install -not war