Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Security Meeting Causes Unease
Tony Maclennan writes to tell us that there were many mixed feelings at this year's Microsoft Security Response and Safety Summit. Many who attended the conference felt that the presentations were sadly lacking in the technical details that were shared in previous years. With Microsoft entering the arena as a competitor to these anti-virus companies, one has to wonder about the effect on the free flow of information that ultimately benefits the consumer.
C'mon, folks! It is no longer in Microsoft's interest to divulge techniques that may allow a competitor to secure the most profitable OS in History against it's own vulnerabilities.
The security companies will be better off forming their own knowlege pool and inviting Microsoft representatives to learn from them.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
You can imagine why everyone kept their mouth shut:
It's especially a concern that Microsoft requires attendees to sign a document that allows the company to use anything that anyone says at the event.
"Having been put into that situation, people will feel more inhibited to say things," said Jimmy Kuo, a McAfee fellow and a veteran of the Microsoft events. "They ask us to sign a nondisclosure agreement, and if we say anything in those meetings that Microsoft is able to use, they have the right to do so." The agreement was introduced in recent years, he said.
Really, what kind of conference organized by a competitor that already puts in a clause that they can steal the ideas presented would actually render useful information? Think of some big pharmaceutical firm letting its competitors come and show their ideas with a clause like the one above. It would be surprising if anyone would actually show up.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Trend Micro. Perhaps the others are staying away out of fear? Seems shortsighted.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
There is something very wrong if an entire business exists to work around holes in a companies OS. There is something even more wrong when that company is attempting to enter into that business. Wouldn't fixing the security model be more effective.
So, how many of the wonderful new '12 Rules' does this violate? And how many people really believed in the 'Kinder, Gentler, Microsoft'?
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Microsofts poor security and anti-virus is what keeps bills paid for me and a lot of people I know. If you ask me, malware can be a good thing in a capitalist run country like USA. If it wasn't for malware, the entry level jobs at a lot of IT companies would be gone.
Of course those would likely get blamed on "Evil Hackers and Coders" as opposed to the company(pluralize if necessary) putting out the OS.
Face it, Microsoft is at the top, and hence, is villified. They're not doing a horrible job, all things considered. Mod me down, Flame me for being a "fangirl", whatever.
The simple truth of the matter is that there is NOTHING wrong with MS making an Anti-Virus, and Anti-Spyware solution for it's customers. Bundling them FREE with Windows? Yes that can be a problem. I'm actually sort of on the fence about MS's Anti-Spyware software coming installed with Vista. I don't think that's fair. If they want to offer it free, that's fine (don't cry foul unless you're prepared to tell Spoybot, AdAware, et al that they can't provide free software either). Bundling it with Windows? I don't like it. Microsoft offers their Virus Protection as a FOR PAY product, meaning people have to spend money on it. It's hardly unfair to companies like Symantec or McAfee, or Trend Micro for that matter. It's simply a competing product.
As for non-disclosure agreements, and intellectual property rights and such, this is nothing new, and is practiced by just about EVERYONE in the information business. I remember being incensed when Yahoo bought geocities, and the TOS agreement changed so that Yahoo suddenly owned ANY AND ALL CONTENT that you hosted on their servers. Without ever agreeing to a new TOS when the company changed hands. THAT ticked me off. Yahoo tried using some images I'd painstakingly made, and were profiting off of them, even though they had been hosted at geocities, and the TOS at the time (that I had agreed to) left the rights and ownership to me. Yahoo essentially swiped them (but was at least kind enough to simply delete my account after I threatened them with legal action, and they stopped using my images).
Welcome to capitalism. Break the word down.
... but you also have to look at the possibility that no one would know the inherent flaws in Windows better than Microsoft, and thusly, no one would be better able to create anti-malware software. Sure, it might press competitors out of business, and that's inherently bad, but if it could provide us with a single anti-malware solution that was self-sustaining and beat all the bad stuff out there, I would be quite happy with MS.
If Microsoft releases the buggy, hole-ridden mess that so many are afraid of along with functional, cheap, easily obtainable antivirus tools, they're out of a job. If Microsoft were to release an OS as secure as, say, Linux, they're still out of a job.
The second options is impossible for a closed source company.
The first option, less most of the bugs, is what M$ would like you to believe is going to happen.
The usual option is to realease anything they can and then put the others out of business. Price and "free" are only the surface of the attack. The real attack comes from denying the "competitor" needed OS information and outright sabotage. Microsoft's insane complexity and bugs are a legacy of that kind of attack.
No company has a guaranteed right to profit.
M$ is a company too. Vista is the end of the road for them. Their profits and market share will implode soon after they get that buggy junk out the door when no one buys it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.