Slashdot Mirror
No Backdoor in Vista
mytrip wrote to mention a C|Net article stating that Vista will not have a security backdoor after all. From the article: "'The suggestion is that we are working with governments to create a back door so that they can always access BitLocker-encrypted data,' Niels Ferguson, a developer and cryptographer at Microsoft, wrote Thursday on a corporate blog. 'Over my dead body,' he wrote in his post titled Back-door nonsense."
going to die soon? (nothing personal)
Is that there are backdoors in our currently installed non-vista versions of windows?
I believe that can be arranged...
I don't really see how they could develop it with no backdoor at all, I mean that would imply that it's completely unh4x0rable, which is, or at least has been in every past instance, impossible. Unless they mean intentional backdoors, which they probably do...
I suspect the NSA, (who I seem to recall left a few stray tags lying around in a previous version of Windows' code), would look at you dead-pan and agree.
-FL
We have no reason to believe this claim -- doubly
so given that Microsoft has lied repeatedly in the past.
So back it up. Prove it. PUBLISH THE SOURCE.
Failure to publish the source will be considered
an explicit admission by Microsoft that this claim
is exactly what it appears to be: just another lie.
"The suggestion is that we are working with governments to create a back door so that they can always access BitLocker-encrypted data,' Niels Ferguson, a developer and cryptographer at Microsoft, wrote Thursday on a corporate blog. 'Over my dead body,' he wrote in his post titled Back-door nonsense."
I think we would be reading about his dead body if he came out and admitted that there were backdoors being put into Vista.
More accurately: "Governments have never needed our help accessing windows backdoors. Why would that change with Vista?"
'Over my dead body,' he wrote
The problem with closed software is that we have to take his word for it.
- Get me Ferguson... tell him we're going hunting. Yes, hunting. With Cheney.
Be careful what you wish for; someone from an unspecified federal intelligence agency may oblige you.
For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
'Over my dead body,' he wrote
"Your terms are acceptable" reply the NSA.
Thus far, every single comment is posted is the same boring obvious joke. Does nobody ever have anything to say in here?
Anyway, I found this whole story ludicrous in the first place. If they were to put in a backdoor, they would never speak about it publicly. Publicity over something like this is the last thing MS needs right now.
Besides, the cryptography group at MS are an accomplished lot. I doubt they would risk their careers and ideals doing the government's dirty work although there is nothing that compels them to. From Ferguson's blog:
[I]n the unlikely situation that we are forced to by law we'll either announce it publicly or withdraw the entire feature. Back doors are simply not acceptable. Besides, they wouldn't find anybody on this team willing to implement and test the back door.
Precisely.
So it's a secret backdoor. :-)
Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
'Over my dead body,' he wrote in his post
He's crazy if thinks big corporations would even think twice of doing something over the dead body of one of their workers.
--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
Bill Gates did invent the Internet after all, says Microsoft. No, really.
we'll just have to take Mr. Furguson's word for it.
Just read the pw as it as entered.
If you are of interest a keylogger will be running.
That will be as easy to install as it was over the last 20 years with m$.
So Vista can make a safe file - just like any other OS - its the OS this is the problem.
The last 20 years of computer history should show any end user that.
M$ is the way in.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Which is easier, hiring hitmen and then lawyers (to fight the case), or just firing him?
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
We all know there will be buffer overruns, and the occasional hacker access through IE7. I'd even be willing to bet that the new RSS feed being built into the OS at a low level will provide lots of ways into the Bitlocker.
No worries, then! The cops won't be able to get into your files, but the criminals will!
As the Who might have said: "Meet the new Windows, same as the old Windows".
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
... you won't be in the loop if/when it gets compromised.
A quick look at the "Crypto AG" fiasco makes it plain how very much governments want backdoors. "For decades, the US has routinely intercepted and deciphered top secret encrypted messages of 120 countries." Imagine the power some entity would have if it could peek into any Windows system at will - the temptation must be making their toes curl.
Whether or not there is a top-level agreement with top-level spooks it is still unlikely that local lawmen will be allowed to know about it. So what exactly IS Microsoft planning to do when they inevitably get a request to "help" with an encrypted drive?
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
One man does not represent the whole company. I think that saying "over my dead body" is just a hyperbole. I dought that one Microsoft's employee can influence the whole company. I don't understand what makes that man to put his own words in the risk if he must know that he is not the only one that decides... He should not do that if he honours his words, it makes me be in doubt about his words and his credibility.
...
Right words should be: "I will resign if...", "I'll put all my influence behind...",
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
I think that anyone who is half serious about their security wouldnt be using encryption software developed by micro$soft
A better choice is pgp and gnupg. Gnupg is open source, so you can verify there are no backdoors. I'd like to see m$ top that!
Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
There Is also No Cabal.
(Minor detail: shouldn't the article title read "No Deliberate Backdoor in Vista"?)
Gets across the idea to the Linux lovers on Slashdot that Microsoft Vista will indeed be very secure.
From Zonk as usual
there are heaps of people with access to the source code (ok, maybe not full), such as academic institutions, and infamous examples such as MainSoft, who could prove 'em wrong.
But then we'd have to take the word of some un1337 student haxer at some institution, who just locked down access to their precious copied jewels because some un1337 student haxer at some instituion proved some M$ guy wrong.
Anyway, aren't there multiple reports of backdoors in PGP from various stages of its life? Of course, since its not Stallman-Endorsed(TM) software everyone on Slashdot, fearing executing bash will get them locked up just points and laughs anyway, right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Q k9A9SUPkLCcF0fRqJkeVXl5XIcnNzl f9Ii/WDyeq9TTQ6bfEobGrG0yLt8w2st1rpieGB6M8k8nf TM+d0GWtdtCVDZnHwdPsfCmH/A0PdD3bjgMt7b6jEMzE9lExRO gvCE3cuqchON I7SlUGAljULo7inCdXDCakJw0jbt ABt9hkpuWDZvIOfaQBjRHNV89BZO7cd6zxr/0hHzJjmN S8PHx24KRS6SDpHzRVeUcN6Dr6uyjLijXeQJ5Vk+3/RPbS/pw= =
Hash: RIPEMD160
replicant108 wrote:
> The problem with closed software is that we have to take his word
> for it.
That is one of the motivations for why I wrote eCryptfs for Linux:
http://ecryptfs.sourceforge.net
It is a 100% GPL kernel-native stacked cryptographic filesystem. I
intend for this to be a direct competitor with the likes of Windows
EFS and BitLocker. The design document is available from this web
site, and the full source code is open for analysis by anyone who has
an interest.
It currently does encryption via a mount-wide passphrase. By the end
of the year, I have in plan to implement HMAC integrity verification,
public key support, mount-wide cipher selection, and dynamic user
interaction components.
Beta testers and developers from the Open Source Software community
are always more than welcome to participate!
Mike Halcrow
eCryptfs Lead Developer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBRAmUCttAhTFtyodpAQMwDQgAiu
HN5fgLkJ6i5/FGW5AB
FE
mZaGFcnXIhOZo2hUMi3bxnkVFk+G95trbRxu
V4hpMNEFrBkcCp86jy3t
ZoCK
=boiK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Let the government wait a week for someone to find a backdoor, just like the rest of us....
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
strangely silent on the topic of Internet Hearts.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Gay. Tell me I'm not the only one who thought that ....
The whole story should be posted as flamebait. (pun intended)
I'm moving my software and "various videos and images" onto my Slackware server. reiserfs is virtually unbreakable by the fuzz.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
You're absolutely right. At least with OSS... oh wait... I still have to take a developer's word for it. Hmmm
I don't respond to AC's.
If there actually where a backdoor in vista, would MS admit it? Probably not.
(emphasis mine)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Do you honestly believe Microsoft gives a shit what you think, do you think they even read slashdot?
'Oh noes, some random twat on slashdot says our failure to publish the source means there must be a backdoor, our business is ruined!!111oneone'
If you don't like Microsoft software, don't use it. Besides, even if you do use it there are plenty of other encryption tools available, such as Truecrypt. Truecrypt is even open source.
Better watch out for flying chairs, Mr. Ferguson.
Aside from the obvious "what about buffer overruns?" questions, aimed at the usually poor competence Microsoft shows in writing code, there's also "what about cryptographic strength?" question -- maybe the NSA already has a simple and fast way to break whatever encryption BitLocker will end up using.
And, of course, there may well be several people working at Microsoft who actually work for the NSA or MI-6 or the FSB. (I'd be astonished if there weren't at least a few such people on the Microsoft payroll.) Those people may well do things as described in Reflections on Trusting Trust, without letting their superiors know.
No worries. Microsoft will just utilize users' built-in backdoors, as usual.
Does it use Fuse? Otherwise I will have no part of it.I see Fuse as the way forward, as soon as stupid Gnome and stupid KDE stop reimplementing the same shit over and over again and join forces on something truly usable and transparent.
Microsoft has been known to lie, cheat and steal.. so there is no way of us knowing whether or not there is actually a back door.. think about it.. this is a closed source OS. There could be hundreds of back doors and there is no way for the user to know. Only an idiot would trust Microsoft after the immoral things they have done.
Dw.
Ad *) Or manually
Joshua: Shall we play a game?
David Lightman: Oh!
Jennifer: I think it missed him.
David Lightman: Yeah. Weird isn't it? Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Wouldn't you perfer a nice game of chess?
David Lightman: Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Joshua: Fine.
Niels Ferguson's body was found in a dumpster.
BILL GATES HATES AMERICA!
Rumors have it that Michael Wilson is to do the documentary to prove it.
microsoft operating systems begining with windows 95 have never really needed a backdoor, especially since the front door is left wide open.
I sent Neils an invitation to respond to this thread. Don't know if he'll get it, but I found his website on Google (put down that chair Steve....take deep breaths)
Anyhow - he seems quite smart enough to do what the BBC article mentions, but after reading his site a bit, I think the guy would have a real problem if asked to code a backdoor. He seems to be ethical.
Tin hat conspiracy weavers would say that unbeknownst to Neils, who is a front, that there is yet another team coding the backdoor.
And yet, as long as you use a OS that will not release its' source code, suspicions will always lurk about something.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
But they left out the rest of his quote.
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
I have been in Mr. Ferguson shoes, left with the choice of putting in a back door demanded by the NSA or quit. To my knowledge, NSA always gets there way. If he won't do it, the next guy will.
Over my dead body.
So is he dead yet?
A rear entry product should have a rear entrance just for completeness and symmetry.
Developers: We can use your help.
For many years the NSA had keys embedded in Microsoft Windows. Remember that the US government is the single biggest Microsoft customer. Also realize if they do it voluntarily they wouldn't expect any public outcry. With closed source code it's tough to find. Plus the government wouldn't do anything about it anyway since it's in their favor.
Developers: We can use your help.
So you are trusting these reporters to convey what Mr. Ferguson actually said? More likely he just flat out admitted that they are installing a set of keys for the NSA and are being more careful about choosing registry names for the keys this time.
Thats right they won't build in the backdoors. Governments will have to find the security holes like everyone else. Its like Easter Eggs.
And we wish there is No Front door neither ?
--
http://www.frappr.com/eracket # OEM victims worldwide ?
-- http://rzr.online.fr/
Hahahaha! Show me a programmer who does NOT build in at least a dozen backdoors in his work! And how many programmers were working on Vista, did you say...?
After all they don't call it windows for nothing.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
NSA and secret keys added to windows.
Thanks for the link, truthsearch.
-FL
M$ is perfectly capable of creating a back door without any help from the govt.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
So that's it then. He wouldn't lie, and Microsoft wouldn't make him. An MS security employee says "over my dead body" on a blog. There's still a backdoor in there. Bet on it. Or do you think we were greeted as liberators in Iraq as well?
"Your proposal is acceptable."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I don't know if I can trust that statement. We have been shown that our Federal government will now lie without breaking a sweat clearly to our face. And Microsoft, at this point, is such a jauggernaut of American corporation and so very much tied into National Security by their simple entrenchment on the desktop that it might be illegal for them to say anything.
And Microsoft has been batterred so much by the legal system that by now it is beginning to hurt a bit. It needs some government support. it is being attacked from all angles.
Down with the Evil Empire!
Mad, adj : Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence. Ambrose Bierce - The Deveil's Dictionsary
Move along there is nothing to see here.
a C|Net article stating that Vista will not have a security backdoor after all.
:)
[troll]
Given Microsoft's history with operating system security, I'm sure there will be plenty of 'frontdoors' for attackers to get through.
[/troll]
There won't be a backdoor in Vista that they KNOW about. I bet they'll manage to build some in unintentionally.
I mean, why should it be different in Vista than it was 'til now?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...that subtle. i am not in the US, but every time i see or read about us gov't problems with its own citizens, it's hardly the stuff of super agents or high tech. it's always a bunch of goons kick in a door and chuck you in guatonamo (sp?) and proceed to just kick the crap out you until you confess. look at all the big advances of homeland security, not exactly the sharpest knives in the dishwasher, last thing i read was two homeland security officers attempting to raid and shutdown computer use at a library and the librarian with the police kicked them out. i'm thinking if MS wanted them to have a back door and put it in, most of them would hardly know what to do with it.
... as it is common Microsoft lore that Balmer can be deadly with furniture.
Mind the frickin' laser...
The problem is transparency.
Would you stake your business or for that matter, you life (as is the case in some regions of the world) on this assumption? Since there is no transparency in Microsoft products, you simply have to take their word for it.
I thought the golden rule of security was that any viable security mechanism should tolerate public scrutiny. Knowing how the software works should not work against the devised scheme itself.
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
If they had just found some random key in the registry that said "NSAKEY" you say to yourself, well who knows its just some registry key? But based on where it is located and what function it is near it does appear quite suspicious.
Regardless of what Ferguson says, when it comes to closed source you simply never know. Combine that with the Fact that A) our government has ZERO respect for its citizens privacy B) we all know they have no qualms about torturing us and C) the problem that people will do absolutely anything for money, and you have plently of reasons to doubt Ferguson. It that all doesn't make perfect sense to you then your living under a rock.
Gnupg is open source, so you can verify there are no backdoors
Yes, absolutely. If you're going to use encryption semi-seriously or even professionally, you have no choice but to use open source crypto libraries and apps!
But source code alone is no panacea here: you (or anyone skilled enough -- a.k.a. the community) could discover obvious backdoors, but what about backdoors in some crypto algorithms themselves? Having the source code for this won't help you much. Nothing could really prevent the NSA from working with a crypto implementer to slightly weaken an algorithm, so they could decrypt stuff with less effort than usual. Unless you were a very talented cryptographer, you won't notice the difference.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Windows has always had insecurity backdoors.
I'm sorry, but its so easy for another team working on Windows to create a backdoor. Read the password as its typed and store it somewhere, perhaps the last 20 bytes on the HD, or anywhere, really, under some public-private key encryption scheme that only Microsoft has the private key to. That WOULD be reasonably secure, wouldn't it? After all, a simple substition schema before the public-private would make it difficult to decipher since it won't decode to words and its only 20 bytes. (I am no expert though). And then you have a backdoor the crypto guys don't even know about.
When someone denies something that means that it is happening, just like Larry Ellison.
However, it's interesting and a huge risk for Microsoft. If something is discovered then people are going to know. If evidence is submitted in some sort of legal trial from a supposed backdoor then people are going to know. Governments will stand back, say "Nothing to do with us" and Microsoft will be in a hot vat of shit. The only way a backdoor could be used is in an extremely subversive manner, or when a full TPM set up is on everybody's desktop.
There is no way for anyone but Bill and co. to know what backdoors exist. If you want to control who can see the contents and run programs on your computer, use linux.
But they do release the source code to universites and their partners.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Anyone paranoid about security would not believe a word the man says. If they were making a back door, would they tell you? Of course not, that would greatly lower the value of the back door. Anyone with sensitive information on their computer would be insane to trust bitlocker if he says there's a back door.
So we will have to rely on independent auditors - those people like DVD John that will ignore all the silly "no reverse engineering allowed" rules and tear it apart anyway. Then we will know for sure. When people really get serious, like international governments, do we see blind trust? No, we have "trust but verify". These people don't want to let anyone verify, so how can we just trust them?
Ignoring the possibility he's lying, you seriously have to ask yourself how many other back doors microsoft was created lately, without even trying. Worm of the Week, anyone? I don't think even if they tried to make it secure, that they could succeed on the first (or second) try. Their track record on security is very clear to see.
Even organizations with a great deal of money to lose can't make things bulletproof on the first try. The cryptographic weaknesses of CSS (DVD encrypting) are well documented, and that industry spent milllions of dollars developing it.
So either way you look at it, they're not worthy of our trust in this matter.
Apple tends to be the "white hat" in these situations, and they also have had home folder encryption for several years now, called FileVault. Even though I have more trust in Apple than I do in MicroSoft, I can't help but wonder about the possibilities of an intentional (or unintentional) back door in FileVault.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Given Microsoft's history, both old and new, does anybody really believe this fodder coming out of them??? They have an advanced version of their license machine in Vista that is supposed to make up for the errors they experienced with the ones in Office and XP. There has to be something for them to get in unannounced for validation purposes.
I don't believe a word of it. Once a liar, always a liar. Steve Balmer is still with Microsoft right??? Pack of liars. I don't buy it.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
"What? He says no backdoor in our upcoming Windows version?? - I'm going to f**ing kill that guy!"
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
IPMI is very powerful. An IPMI session starts with a Presence ping Any machine with IPMI hardware should answer a "presence ping" on UDP port 663. This identifies an IPMI-capable machine, and returns some vendor info. Anyone can send this. This should work even if the machine is "turned off", as long as it has standby power and is on a LAN.
Then, there's a challenge-response authentication sequence. More on this later.
Once you're in, here are some of the things you can do:
There's more. Much more. Basically, you can remotely take over the machine, turn it on, inventory the hardware, load an operating system, boot it up, and talk to it.
IPMI's back channel can do more than this. With some help from the operating system (and yes, it's supported in Windows) you can do more remote administration functions. This is great for administering your data center remotely. But it has darker implications.
Supposedly, most machines are shipped with IPMI mostly turned off, unavailable until a program is run on the machine to load in the keys that enable it. Supposedly.
Thus, all it takes for IPMI to be a "backdoor" is for a set of secret challenge/response keys to be preloaded into the IPMI chip. There's no way to read those keys. Short of taking the chip apart, gate by gate, there's no way to tell if there's a backdoor in there. Or a set of keys might be loaded by the system integrator before shipping the system. You can't tell. So that's where to put a backdoor, where no one can find it.
There's an open source, OpenIPMI, for sending IPMI commands on Sourceforge. Send "Presence pings" to the machines you have and see if they answer.
MS says no back door, *some* terrorist gets stupid and store their data using BitLocker. MS says yes back door, *all* terrorists finds an alternate solution. Very smart of MS/Gov't.
Vista will ALWAYS have a backdoor. This the showcase product of the richest man in the world. His and his companie's continued prosperity depends on the good graces of governments. And the governments will always demand a back door to spy on their people.
This is the way that the world works. MS will always deny that there is a backdoor. But it will always be there. If you don't believe it, go to China or any other crypto-fascist dictatorship with advanced technology. Start sending e-mails to foreign websites about subjects like democracy and freedom in general. Request information about local massacres of protesters in freedom demonstrations. Be sure to use encoded with Microsoft's bundled encryption. See how long it takes for the local secret police to arrest you. A week, a month?
Don't gamble your life and freedom on a sucker's bet. Microsoft will always cooperate with local authorities to ensure that Vista will not shield political dissidents. The only people who can be assured that their correspondence actually is private will be Microsoft employees. This is a trade-off that giant monopolistic global corporations always make with the totaltarian governments in the countries that they operate. Regardless of how much they deny it, Microsoft will act no differently.
Count on it.
NSA looked at the code, and deemed there are enough bugs in Vista that a backdoor isn't necessary for the next 10 years.
So...when does a corporate blog equate to a press release or credible fact/policy?
When the front door is wide open?
Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
Most people assume using HTTPS or any SSL-encrypted communication is secure, especially when they see the other side presenting an authentic key...
But suppose someone wanted to intercept & modify SSL traffic?
If they were in bed with Verisign, they could just get a copy of the signed key and use a simple transparent proxy to filter/modify traffic. If this was done at the office building and/or ISP level, it would be very difficult to notice. (At most, there might be an extra hop in one of many internal ISP hops in a traceroute)
Which means SSL is probably insecure (against large organizations/governments).
I'm not sure what kind of checking Microsoft's Windows Update site does, but considering they're using SSL, I bet they either have something to hide or they are relying on SSL for most of their security. And considering that Internet Explorer's "trust" mechanisms are based on DNS domainname, things could go really really bad....
Of course, most Linux distributions are probably not any better. Even though many rely in MD5 or other hashes of downloaded files, these could be intercepted and modified... One mitigating factor is that the distributed nature of the mirrors and users would make this more difficult.
Only those who write network hardware drivers have any chance of detecting "hidden" activity...
"The codebase [is] complicated enough that such a back door could be added without Niels being aware of it."
Well yes and no, a backdoor could be embedded into vista sure (hell theres bound to be quite a few 'back doors' they dont even know about) however this guy is making the encryption and is saying just the encryption part he is working on will not have a backdoor. This is because to code a backdoor into an encryption method is completely undermining the entire purpose of the encryption.
Thats how I read it anyway... If there is a delibrate backdoor I have no doubt it will be found at some point although it may be years down the line. Its going to take people a while to properly figure out how the system works and any anomolies in it.
Do you remember the big "Clean out your permanent search history" rush a while back, still around but not so much. That was when it was widely revealed IE was storing your browsing history in a hidden way as well as the usual way you could clear?
Yea they probably got that one lined up for any time soon ..
Note that our friend here has mastered the first art of creating a secret backdoor! ...deny that it's there!
No matter, we can find the back door quite easily.
*A loud explosion blows a huge chunk out of the backside of vista*
And that concludes our lesson for today in how NOT to make your backdoor seen.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
"I will protect these chickens from myself and my fox friends", said the fox in the hen house.
He's off the code, someone else puts in the backdoor. Most of us here have worked for big software companies. This is 101 software right?
I really can't believe slashdot is discussing this except as some aid to a propaganda excercise by our favourite software company. Really, don't give them the free bits. Take a tip from, say, zdnet, and get *paid for the fluff pieces, owise you'll end up nailed to the door like the rest of the fucking monkeys.
angry and proud of it.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Microsoft would NEVER put a backdoor into Windows. Backwindows are the only acceptable form of intrustion.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
what they mean is the MS engineers know of no backdoors....
until some 15 year old in Sweden finds one of them
"And in the unlikely situation that we are forced to by law we'll either announce it publicly or withdraw the entire feature." Feruguson does not understand the way that the law works in the United States. The US government has the LEGAL authority to tell them not to disclose something that they have done if was for national security purposes.
Remember there was "no back door" in Win31->Win2k3, either, until we found one (or more). Face it- there's at least one. Ever seen Easter Eggs?
When these guys talk, you need to *instinctively* know they're lying. (they have, for about two decades, now...even the release process hasn't really changed...)
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Governments will just have to get back door access to Vista machines the same way as everyone else: by buying it off a Russion script kiddie.
...running a linux firewall will throw bolmer's chair at us backdoors.
well sure their business practices often shut out the little guy, but building backdoors for the government is like blatant evilness. ultimatley yeh they are the big bad when it comes to business, but money aside, these are techies who don't WANT to be evil any more than the guys at google.
building a backdoor is too evil even for microsoft basically...
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
what about the Greek version?
The Wachowski Bros. screened GHOST IN THE SHELL then showed it to Joel Silver to get funding for MATRIX I and (un)knowingly brought Plato's Allegory Of The Cave to the silver screen....
We've already seen with the Chinese blog censorship controversy that they'll bend over and take it up the butt for any government that doesn't play nice.
If, for example, the Chinese demand a back door to Chinese Vista or they will ban it and move the country to Linux how long do you think it will take for Ballmer to give prima donnas like Niel Ferguson figruative 9mm brain hemorrages?
Well the front door is open
Vista will not have a security backdoor
Because Vista will have a SecureBackGates.NET!
There you are, staring at me again.
Of course it will have a backdoor. Apart from anyone else, the NSA would want it. This is just smoke and mirrors to cover that up. The only way the OS won't have a backdoor is if Microsoft are providing a tool to selected parties that circumvents the whole OS anyway.
making your own trusted certification authority is trivial.
I mean it's only a backdoor if you didn't ">agree to the backdoo, right? Then it would be authorized access and of course MS would never give out the keys to your server, right? And anyway MS only uses technology so secure that no unauthorized third parties could use it.
Sure we do.
Fucking liars, the lot.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
One wonders that, if a backdoor were included, would not the NSA or whatever other organization then also want a copy *without* the backdoor. After all, it's one thing to know that it will let you into anyone else's machine, but another to have it possible for others to get into yours.
;-)
I think I'll have to find some special place where I can get a copy of "Vista - Professional NSA Edition" Of course, in that copy there's probably a Syrian backdoor installed, but what the heck
No, of course they do not plan to add backdoors. They propably had them already builtin from the very beginning. And they are not going to tell you about this, anyway...
;-)
As long as such security relevant code is not available as open source, it will be treated as "tampered with" and "unsafe at any speed".
And trying to stand in front of an US agency saying "over my dead body" is a good way to win you a Darwin Award, boy...
"If the number of heads poses a problem, decapitation can be arranged."
Yours, Christian