Slashdot Mirror
More Headaches from Vista Security
Michael Cooney writes to tell us Windows Vista may have some serious headaches in store for corporate users with third-party authentication systems like VPNs. From the article: "ISVs say rewriting their code for the new architecture will produce headaches that will extend to their customers that have deployed strong authentication such as biometrics or tokens, enterprise single sign-on and a number of other systems integrated with the Windows authentication architecture."
Hasta la Vista security.
$sig$
Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago we were lamenting "what could have been"?
Microsoft capitulates and disables large chunks of Vista security by default in order to appease corporate customers. People are up in arms.
Microsoft rewrites architecture to make things more secure. People are up in arms.
Me, I'm with the "Good!" crowd. Make things more difficult for me when I transition. It'll make things easier later on.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Wait a minute! Did you just compare Windows Vista with Ferrari?
It's expensive to own, expensive to fix, and makes you curse like an italian.
Your point is ???
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The way "Windows authentication architecture" is extended in XP is very limiting - essentially you write DLL (so called GINA) that replaces part of XP log-in system and this DLL is responsible for retrieval of users credentials for Windows. However it was possible to have only single GINA installed at the same time, so if you wanted to have two security products installed - you were in trouble.
Now Vista will support new architecture for security providers with possibility of multiple providers registered at the same time. A definite improvement for users.
In fact the new architecture is not THAT different from the previous one, so the entire article is moot. Then again, it's SlashDot...
Slashdot - free anti-Microsoft propaganda 24/7
Never said it (they) did. Actually if you look at your direct quote from my post, I used the term "paradigm". So, in that context, let me expand a bit: the paradigm was very much an assumption, one machine/computer, one user, hence the bizarre logical drives, all accessible to all levels by all users (by default at least -- yes, that's now changing, welcome to century 21).
As for intent, I was on the original NT Beta support team at Microsoft (there were 16 of us), and after walking in the door, I immediately began asking for information on setting up my machine with a multi-user configuration. The team treated me like I was some sort of nut case -- they emphasized multi-user meant multiple users could access services on one machine (file services, not new in NT though, etc.), not multiple users logged onto one machine.
They were barely comfortable with the notion of more than one user ever using one machine, even one user at a time!
As for all of this being a hack, you are absolutely right. I would actually probably be less adversarial with Microsoft if they were more candid about things like this, but to read their literature, they concede nothing, ever. (For example, the initial security access levels "rings" in the NT kernel were elegantly designed and promptly trampled to allow performance by granting direct video hardware access to non-privileged code -- go figure.)
I joined Microsoft in 1992 excited about being a part of what I thought was a sea change in their OS direction. I left shortly after when behind closed doors I discovered it was a facade designed to show Microsoft was ready to play on the same court with the big boys (namely, Unix). Unfortunately, they weren't. Unfortunately, they got away with it. Unfortunately, even today, they don't stand up to hardened Unix systems (they're closer than ever, but still not there).