Slashdot Mirror
Vista Security Discussions Get a Rocky Start
narramissic writes "A technical glitch Thursday morning prevented many security vendors from participating in the first online discussion regarding Microsoft's plans for opening up the Vista kernel, ITworld reports. In a blog posting on the subject, Microsoft Senior Product Manager Stephen Toulouse wrote, 'We had a glitch where we sent out a messed up link. ... We're very sorry about that, it certainly was not intentional and we definitely see that was not a good thing for people to experience on such an important topic.'"
Phew! It was just an accident!
I left my wallet in El Sigundo!
Sending out messed up operating systems is also a glitch I take it?
'We had a glitch where we sent out a messed up link. ... We're very sorry about that, it certainly was not intentional and we definitely see that was not a good thing for people to experience on such an important topic.'
Was it a glitch, a bug or a feature? Inquiring minds want to know...
Yeah, well, it was a link to an IIS server.
Meta will eat itself
You mean like Steve Ballmer jogging along the beach, throwing sparring chairs at punching dolls while some 80s influenced background music accompanies his efforts to fucking kill everybody? Nice, really.
Microsoft employee sends an email with an incorrect URL in it! Collapse of Micrsoft predicted! End of the world is nigh! Extra, Extra, read all about it!
Slashdot has just sunk to a new low of pointlessness in their "articles". Urgh.
you must be one those "explosives planted by the government brought down the towers" types eh?
on a side note, Apple's excuse for a virus on some video iPods was given a pass....
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Symantec and Microsoft have a long history of a love/hate relationship and Microsoft has put more and more things into its operating system products that have closed entire markets for Symantec (and it's predecessors).
My blog
While it seems more a move to placate a rabid EU, this move is actually pretty good for all users.
First, not all users will get the APIs. In fact, only a tiny fraction of users, all of whom work at security and anti-virus companies, will get to see these opened APIs. Why then is it good news?
It's good because it brings into the fold those most able to spot security issues. Despite Microsoft's money and the experience of their top engineers, they all have tunnel-vision when it comes to Windows. And it's not hard to see why, after all, it's their baby. So even though they've got top security people working for them looking deeply into these issues, the very nature of those engineers' employment makes it difficult to see some of the problems that an outside observer would be able to spot easily.
By turning the baby over to the wolves, so to speak, Microsoft is getting Vista tested by the best testing teams around. The OSS motto is "more eyes makes all bugs shallow", I look forward to that same principle working well here.
To err is human.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Dear [insert security vendor's contact]
You couldn't attend the meeting ?
That's really too bad because many very very interesting topics were presented for the first and only time. By missing this important event, you were discalified from any further information that might be made availble in the future.
Sorry for the inconvenience
[insert name and title here]
Like it never happened to anybody!
This is beyond bashing, this is being anal.
This type of attention to detail is par for the course from MS.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
...they will do it next few times. European Commision is already p*ssed with Microsoft and want to fine them once again for anti-trust practices. And, if you remember, Microsoft few weeks ago said that they want to postpone delivery of Vista to Europe. Because of this.
Good point of that (except no Vista fo Europe) is that it will create market for Open Source Software. Especially that Europe already started their fight with proprietary (actually paid for) software.
Yes, I know it's slightly off-topic...
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
Who thought of this? MS wants to keep kernel secret, then capitulates, and schedules conference with security vendors, then admits it screwed up and schedules another one for people to attend. A net meeting?!?! To discuss security of an OS?!?!?! Does this not set off flags in the minds of the security sector? I am sorry but if I want to discuss such sensitive things as OS kernel and API programming and how to avoid, detect and remove malicious apps from infecting the OS, I do this face-to-face with people that are screened, background checked, and sign NDA's specifying to whom they can talk to and consequences if they reveal anything proprietary to anyone w/out express written consent.
Perhaps I am anal that way, but come on, we're talking about an OS that will likely suceed the millions of Windows 98, 2000 and XP in the vast majority of homes and businesses across the planet!
Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
Suggestions:
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Zune the security companies audio files of what they missed.
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
'We had a glitch where we sent out a messed up link. ... We're very sorry about that,
A source has informed up that the "messed up link" was in fact a link to tubgirl. Disciplinary action has been taken against the employee responsible. The project manager for Symantec was quoted as saying the experience was "educational", and he is likely never to click on that link again...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I certainly don't think this is a case of "accidentally-on-purpose." But I do think it is a symptom of a endemic problem in the PC industry, which is lack of attention to usability because computer people are intolerant of human fallibility. Even though they exhibit just as much human fallibility as anyone else, when they encounter a technical glitch they are reluctant to blame the design of the system.
Sure, "everyone has glitches from time to time," but when people at Microsoft can't get an important web meeting to work it suggests that there's something flawed about this "all-net-all-the-time" vision they've been touting for more than five years.
Computer technology reached a peak of usability in the early 1990s, when PC vendors still felt that they had to make things easy to use (and supply real support) in order to secure adoption. Once everyone was locked in--not so much to Microsoft, but to PC technology in general--usability was allowed to deteriorate.
The pretense that unreliable, hard-to-use unfinished technology is ready for release is so imbued into Microsoft's culture that Microsoft managers are evidently willing to use unreliable, hard-to-use, unfinished technology to conduct important Microsoft public business.
Stepto should _not_ blame "us" for the "glitch" and apologize. Instead, they should take a long hard look at what it was about the technology they were using that made it easy to "send out a messed-up link."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Thats their business model.
Office worker makes typo and orders 500,000 tongue depressers instead of 50,000
WTF does this have to do with anything, sure someone messed up. The mistake? A typo.
Show me someone who uses a computer day in day out and HAS never once sent an email with a typo, typed a letter containing a typo etc etc etc.
I'm all for a bit of MS bashing where it is due but it is not due here.
Nothing to see here, move along now...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Gah, create an account! It's easy: ...
1. Click "Create Account"
2.
3. Profit!
File this under 'off-topic rant'.
you know, I think a lot of companies in the world could do a lot better without their pr arms sometimes, and we'd do a whole lot better without reporters. MS is apologizing for a technical glitch here, but why the need for the public apology? I'm sure PR told them to do it and even wrote it. Whoever wanted to be in the meeting should just get a "uh yeah, sorry about that; we'll reschedule the sucker if we can't figure it out in a few minutes." Guess what, it happens! Then you'll get some idiot reporter who'll come around and open an article with "In an embarassing turn of events, no one could attend a seminal meeting about security in the upcoming Vista software release. Microsoft has apologized, but is it enough for the beleaguered software giant? Experts are thumbing there noses at the meager response, saying that it's an excuse to stall. MacAffee and Norton representatives (who spoke on condition of anonymity) were insensed. 'This is just another trick by MS to curtail our efforts to protect their customers. If this kind of stall tactic persists, we will have no choise but to pursue legal recourse.' MS representatives could not be reached for comment..." You get the point, it's not news, it's fabricated spin based on a technical glitch. I'm not gonna send out a press release when my phone's got no signal!
MS doesn't need to apologize for this, and it has nothing to do with Vista security (which I am not stating an opinion on, so don't call me out hehe). Apple doesn't need to blame MS for a Virus landing on the iPod. Sony doesn't need to continually baffle us with ridiculous statements about PS3 vs XBOX vs Wii. I swear, PR teams and patent lawyers suing and countersuing every day are just completely pointless, and the tech and business media is not reporting on any of it: it's a collection of "here's my opinion what's happening and of how this reflects poorly on the company involved" opinion editorials, there are no articles at all.
MS sent a bad link. It's not news, it's just unfortunate. The guy that did it will get a "nice one, dumbass" from his/her coworkers, just I like I would here if I did the same thing. I dunno. Hopefully you all see my point here.
[/end rant]
Doesn't sound like a messed up link. According to this dozens of users were kicked off the system. How does a messed up link cause them to login as 'presenters'?
.. Fifteen minutes into the much-anticipated briefing, dozens of the security companies were kicked off line and could not connect again
.. said .. participants signed on as presenters. "Which, if you've ever used Live Meeting, is an invitation to chaos".'
Microsoft finally called an online briefing
"There were problems with the audio and video. We could not get back on."
A Microsoft spokesman explained the crash was due to "technical problems" and an extra briefing would be set for Monday
'Alex Eckelberry
Did the users actually sign on as 'presenters' and how would this crash Live Meeting?
davecb5620@gmail.com
"There were problems with the audio and video. We could not get back on."
.. said .. participants signed on as presenters. "Which, if you've ever used Live Meeting, is an invitation to chaos".'
Non-signed, certified codecs, eh? BAD DEV! No intraweb for YOU!
A Microsoft spokesman explained the crash was due to "technical problems" and an extra briefing would be set for Monday
Vista on an Xbox 360 using Xbox Live for Net Meetings is not recommended, apparently.
'Alex Eckelberry
Did the users actually sign on as 'presenters' and how would this crash Live Meeting?
How, I'd imagine some sort of buffer overflow or fatal exception because if you have many 'presenters' and one 'attendee', that is either an attack, ambush or intervention.
(dons tinfoil hat: Maybe everyone's WGA check failed and disconnected all baaaaad sheeple!)
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
What excuse? Apple said they regretted missing the virus while wishing that Windows was hardier against them, since it was an infected Windows machine on the assembly line that introduced the virus into their devices.
"Sufferin' succotash."
As reported by the researcher on the blog, Microsoft's kernel protection scheme is wide open for some classes of malware.
s ta-rc2-vs-pagefile-attack-and-some.html
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2006/10/vi
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
News headline: God has changed the human being structure to not be susceptible to disease anymore. Antibiotic firms complain, consider it unfair competition.
(the point: if you're a parasite company that's living off anothers companies flaws, bugs and holes, don't complain about the cure)
A Microsoft spokesman explained the crash was due to "technical problems"...
LOL
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
It was a false flag operation. It was reported that the only reason it wasn't carried out was that Kennedy rejected the plan. I'm not saying 9/11 was a false flag operation, but you have to be wearing blinders not to see the similarities between this actual, documented, nearly implemented plan and what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11. If the US government nearly did it once, isn't it possible that, under a more hawkish president, we might actually have done what the conspiracies allege?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I hear FOX TV and Chris Carter had something to do with planning 9/11 too!
On the contrary, I just have to have common sense. I guess Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Queda, Britain, both sides of Congress, and the entire military are also in on the conspiracy? Is there a martian in your bedroom?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Hey, I don't actually think 9/11 was planned and carried out by Americans. I think I was fairly clear about that in my reply. I was simply responding to your question, "what does some random 1962 operation have to do with kooks claiming 9/11 was staged without any valid scrap of evidence whatsoever?" You asked a question, I answered it. It wasn't a random operation, it was a planned and documented US false flag operation that is exactly what the kooks are claiming happened on 9/11.
If common sense keeps you from seeing "the similarities between this actual, documented, nearly implemented plan and what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11." then I'm glad I don't have your brand of common sense. I mean, not to be insulting or anything, but did you fail reading comprehension? You did read the part where I wrote "what the conspiracy theorists allege about 9/11," right?
Because you obviously did fail reading comprehension, I'll spell it out for you in small words. In 1962, the US Government planned and almost carried out an operation that would have made it look like Castro was a terrorist so the citizens would get behind going to war with him.
With me so far?
Now, some kooks are saying that we carried out an operation that made the Islamist fundamentalists look like terrorists so the citizens would get behind going to war.
Now do you see the similarities? Because I'm not saying the kooks are right. I'm just saying, either you're an idiot for not seeing how the two things are related, or you do see but you are playing disengenous for some unkown reason. I'm guessing the latter, and I'm guessing the reason is that you really, really don't want to think about the fact that documents prove that the US Government almost carried out an attack on it's own people in 1962.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton