Microsoft Says "War on Terror" is Overblown

SlinkySausage writes "The endless security measures imposed on society as a result of the "war on terror" have become overblown and intrusive, according to Microsoft Redmond senior security analyst Steve Riley. He made the comments in a talk at day one of Tech.Ed Australia about software security. Riley also fessed up that Microsoft cocked up XP from a security perspective. "We let you down with XP," he said. Microsoft also showed a very interesting new desktop virtualisation technology called SoftGrid, which allows applications to be virtualised individually, rather than a whole OS. Think Virtual PC or VMware, but instead of virtualising an OS, just a single application is virtualised."

Comments

Our way of life is not under threat!

[Ckwop]

In the United Kingdom we lost fifty or so people in the carnage of bombings last-year, in the United States you lost four or so thousand.

I don't for a second want to say that the loss of these lives through an unspeakable act of senseless violence is a trivial matter, but we need to put these figures in perspective. In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings. In the United States roughly three times as many people are killed in gun accidents per year than 9/11.

Somebody even said to me that more people were killed putting their socks on in the United Kingdom than by terrorists last-year. It's probably true. This stuff is right in the noise level of the threats we encounter each day. It's dramatic when we see some idiots attempt to blow a car up at Glasgow airport but in terms of actual risk, these people are up there with being struck by lightning or having a bad reaction to asprin.

So why is there talk about trading liberty for security? Even though the security vs liberty argument is as flawed as the mythical man month, the point still remains - why do I need this extra security anyway? It's expensive, it costs me my rights and it's ineffective.

It feels like that we've forgotten what it is really like to be a nation threatend with annihilation. In the 1940s our country nearly didn't make it and we have the United States to thank for that as much as our own heroic airmen. That was a time where the agressors really could have destroyed our way of life. Yet we did not yield in the face our adversity. We held our resolve!

And we should hold our resolve now. In comparison to the Nazis these modern day terrorists are like flies trying to stare down a tank. I don't know whether to laugh or cry why we even take them so seriously. We should not give a shred of our liberty to these people - they are pathetic and worthless; you only need to look at the Glasgow "terrorist" attack to see this for yourselves.

Simon

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[tcopeland]

> In the United Kingdom, more are killed in road traffic
> accidents in a couple of weeks than were in the July 7th bombings.

Yes, but, at the risk of stating the obvious, there's a big difference between dying in an car accident and being killed by someone who blows up a train. You may as well console someone who gets mugged by saying "well, you know, people accidentally lose money every day." It's not relevant to the incident.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[folstaff]

Somebody even said to me that more people were killed putting their socks on in the United Kingdom than by terrorists last-year. It's probably true.

When you say killed, didn't you mean "died"? Because dying and being killed are two different things. If not, we are underestimating the power of footwear.

Your way of live is under threat. According to the article linked, 1 in 4 Muslims are sympathetic to the motives of the terrorists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ ixnewstop.html

That sounds like a threat and a real danger to a peaceful society.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[Kjella]

Our way of life is not under threat!

I agree it's not under threat by terrorism. But, there are several issues that should be of concern which have far greater support among muslims, including but not limited to:

* Freedom of speech
* Women's rights
* Homophobia
* Religious law
* Forced marriage
* Repressed view of nudity and sexuality
* Female sex mutilation
* Honor killings

I know some of these are not tied directly to islam, but they occur mainly in islamic communities and islamic leaders are not doing enough to stop, or are even encouraging these practises. In general, I have the impression that many muslims are far more intolerant towards our way of life and hold values which I quite frankly find unacceptable. I'm not pretending Europe has had too many of these notions too long, 100 years ago women couldn't vote, 50 years ago people were being put on trial for erotic novels and 35 years ago being gay was a crime here in Norway. But in my opinion we have made great strides in recent years ensuring equality for all and that everyone is free to pursue their own happiness. The muslims are on the whole a very reactionary group that in my opinion is threatening to undo much of the progress we have made. What bugs me the most is the complete lack of symmetry - if we go to Saudi Arabia, they want us to respect their culture (or face Sharia). If they come here, respect for our culuture is slim to none.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[n dot l]

You've got a point there, but it doesn't justify the idiotic overreaction we've seen.

Some guys with box cutters hijack some planes and smash them into buildings, killing thousands. Terrible tragedy, I agree, very much unlike random highway accidents. But that doesn't mean that the proper reaction to this is a direct attack on what's left of the values that made this a great culture instead of, say, securing the cockpit with a sturdy, lockable door.

From that perspective it makes sense to compare it to accidents. We usually react sanely to accidents by simply developing better safety mechanisms that directly address the actual things we've seen go wrong. That's quite unlike having some central authority prevent us from ever doing (or thinking or speaking speaking about) anything that might be unsafe (like, say, existing) ever again just because someone slipped on an icy sidewalk and died.

And you could argue that I don't know what I'm talking about because we're moving towards an overly safety-obsessed culture anyway, but that's the result of being a society that sues too much. If you and your buddies want to go out and do dangerous things in the middle of a field where you can't hurt anyone but yourselves, the police aren't going to rush over to stop you. Not at all the same as being constantly spied on and arrested if the watchers see something they don't like, and then being denied due process.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[rossifer]

You may as well console someone who gets mugged by saying "well, you know, people accidentally lose money every day." It's not relevant to the incident.

But the usual response to such a crime (afraid to go out, jumping at every noise in a shadow) is just the same as our current national fear-fest, and just as self-destructive. The appropriate internal response to being mugged is to be a little upset with yourself for being in a situation where you could be mugged and learning how to avoid that situation in the future. Externally, go to the police and describe the suspect as well as you can, then forget about it. When consoling a mugging victim--express sympathy, and internally hope that they don't become afraid of the world. Offering to be with them while "getting back out there" may help quite a bit.

Back to terrorism, one appropriate response to 9/11 is to avoid the situation that got you there (i.e. stop being the cause of so many people's deaths, which causes their surviving relatives to attempt to lash out at you). One other appropriate response is to do a better job of screening packages in high-risk areas. Getting on an airplane, knives don't matter (sharp knives are usually available in the first-class service area). Bombs and guns matter. Make sure there are no bombs in any luggage and no guns in carry-on luggage. Oh, and since it's not difficult to locate or bring a weapon onto an airplane, decide not to simply hand over the airplane to anyone who threatens a stewardess (this actually happened before flight 93 crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside).

Getting all wound up about small knives, bottles over 100ml, x-raying shoes, stopping business travelers from bringing both a carry-on and a briefcase, the color of the national fear-o-meter, etc. is a complete and utter travesty. That is not how you mourn or deal with ~3000 deaths brought about by deliberate fury and rage.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[HollowSky]

Let me start off by saying I do agree with you.

The problem with terrorism and what freaked everyone out is that there is a sense of no personal control. If I kill myself by putting on my socks, everyone says "that's a shame but he shouldn't have been trying to balance himself at the edge of the tub, what nonsense." It's that 'you can be dead at any time through absolutely no fault of your own' thing that gets people going. That idea spills over to research in many areas (preventable diseases like AIDS have historically received less funding than non-preventable like Cancer - although recently that is changing.)

For some reason, that line of thinking doesn't carry forward to other areas. We all understand implicitly that you can be sitting at home and a single engine plane crashes into your house (seems to happen every so often here in the states) and you're gone. Or a bridge can collapse underneath you. We say it's terrible but it doesn't stop our lives like terrorism. My only guess is that we know that the random death is not preventable, so we don't dwell on it. Like winning a morbid lottery.

Our leaders are trying to convince us that 'random deaths from terrorism' are both not preventable (so spend lots of money on it) and preventable (let us intrude into every aspect of your lives) to push their agendas. To keep that contradiction going they have to remind us that we are alive through their efforts (with random busts which later turn out to be nothing at all) thus making them the 'daily medication for our disease' and they constantly warn us that something will happen again and it's not stoppable (be prepared for side effects.)

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[vertinox]

* Freedom of speech
* Women's rights
* Homophobia
* Religious law
* Forced marriage
* Repressed view of nudity and sexuality
* Female sex mutilation
* Honor killings To be fair, that sounds like Western Christianity up until the 1700's when nationalism finally replaced religion as the reason for violent deaths and the renaissance actually was accepted in Norther Europe. Of course Islam is a bit different as its rules as interpretation, but as Turkey shows you can be Muslim without being like Saudi Arabia.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people like Bush and Blair have just taken terrorism as a godsend. They saw that with the end of the cold war they had no real basis to spy on everyone, and when there were terrorist acts they jumped on it to use them as an excuse to tap all phones, place cameras everywhere, read through all databases, etc etc.
Just because they like the control. Not as a "war against terror" but as a "demo of absolute power".

When they really wanted to end terror, they would have investigated the root cause and done something to resolve that. Instead, they started a war on it, fully knowing that terrorism exists just because people feel the are oppressed and thus fighting a war on terror would be like trying to extinguish fire by blowing air at it. It might work for a candle but it will just make matters worse for large fires.

And they do it *because they want that*. They amplify the thread because they want to be in the position where they can use it as an excuse for draconian measures. When 50 die in a bus or plane crash, nobody talks about it after a month. So you need to iterate again and again that the situation is really bad, to get any effect from a 50-death "attack".

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[the_womble]

if we go to Saudi Arabia, they want us to respect their culture (or face Sharia). If they come here, respect for our culuture is slim to none.

If anything the lack of symmetry is the other way around.

As far as I know the Saudis have not managed to impose Sharia law in Britain.

On the other hand many British people have got off more lightly on breaking Saudi laws than a Saudi would have done because of diplomatic pressure (of course if you are from a less powerful country like the Sri Lankan teenager the Saudis are currently framing and executing you are in real trouble). Furthermore Saudi Arabia is (slowly) modernising, partly because of western pressure.

Can you tell me of any European countries that are likely to legalise honour killings or forced marriage, or reintroduce sodomy laws? If not how exactly is your way of life threatened?

Some items on your list (like a "repressed view of nudity and sexuality") seem to simply boil down to not liking people having different views to your own. People are entitled to have any view of sexuality they like provided they do not try to coerce others. That is called freedom and is an important part of my way of living.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[BrianGKUAC]

"Tell me that in 15 years when England is a Police State.
When your women wear barcodes.
When your Liberals lie dead in the streets.
When your Non-Christians serve as torches for the sport of the followers of Jesus.
When the DMCA and Patriot Act are the Law of the Land, and the Magna Carte and Constitution are no more.
Then Tell my your way of life is not under threat."

Fixed that for you.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[Hatta]

Yes, but, at the risk of stating the obvious, there's a big difference between dying in an car accident and being killed by someone who blows up a train.

Really? What is it? Both are preventable. We should be putting our resources towards preventing as many preventable deaths as possible. Whether or not it's intentional is entirely irrelevant.

Re:Our way of life is not under threat!

[dhavleak]

Something's wrong with this picture. Parent is basically a bigot. And whoever modded the parent up is a bigot is well.

Muslims do not think like Westerners. To Put Western Logic over Muslims and expect them to ask as we would shows a complete lack of understanding of who and what they are. Islam has been in Active jihad against the West since the end of WW1, when the Brits and Frenchies lied to them about giving them their own state

• 50: Death toll in London Bombings
• 3,000: Death toll in 9/11
• 650,000: Civillian death toll in Iraq (during the current invasion by US and UK)
• 300,000: Civillians living (dying?) in refugee camps in Iraq
• 3,600: Civillian death toll in Iraq during the Gulf war
• 500,000: Civillain deaths in Iraq due to sanctions imposed by the Clinton govt.
• 300 to 3000: Civillian deaths in the US invasion of Panama
• 3,700: Civillian casualties due to US bombing in Afghanistan
• 2 million to 5.1 million: Vietnamese civilian casualties during the US-Vietnam war
• 700,000: Cambodian civillian deaths during the US-Vietnam war
• 50,000: Laotian civillain deaths during the US-Vietnam war
• 51 million: Death toll during the almost 300 yr British rule in India
• 3 million: people affected by Agent Orange in vietnam
• 140,000: Deaths in Hiroshima due to "Little Boy"
• 80,000: Deaths in Nagasaki due to "Fat Man"

This is the tip of the freaking iceberg. I haven't mentioned Guantanamo Bay, the School of The Americas, US involvement in Haiti, Korea and so many more places where we simply were never welcome. You're in need of a serious history lesson -- Btitain and the US have been aggressor states as long as they have existed. I would rather change my 'way of life' than have millions of people killed in the name of preserving it. I'll gladly take the bus instead of driving a truck/SUV if it means that we stop killing people for oil. When we stop killing people for oil, they'll stop hijacking our aircraft and planting bombs.

Oh wait, I forgot - we did it to make the world safe. From the nuclear arsenal we never found. Oh no -- from the chemical weapons we never found. No no, I got it -- from the biological weapons we never found. Doh! Sorry - it was the Al Quaida operatives who we never found. Shit. Why did we invade Iraq again? And while we were complaining about chemical weapons, why did we use Napalm in Fallujah? Oh, right - it was to bring democracy (our way of life) to the Middle East! Now I get it. Bigot.

The Fact of the matter is, Islam has been at war with the West since the Crusades. It's really funny how you put it like that, when in fact the West was constantly waging war on Islam during the crusades.

I can't believe how some people (you, and whoever modded your post) can be so blind that they lose thier objectivity, and even thier humanity over issues like this.

Let you down with XP

[chatgris]

They say this now, when there is Vista to buy. It's just part of Microsofts standard strategy... Release new operating system, try and make the old one look bad.

Re:Virtualizing Applications

[TheRaven64]

Or think 'operating system.' That's what an operating system does. It virtualises the computer's resources and multiplexes them for applications. It multiplexes memory and gives each process its own address space. It multiplexes disk and gives each process its own virtual disks (files). It (or a userspace delegate) multiplexes video and gives each process its own virtual screen (a window or virtual terminal). It multiplexes the speakers and gives each application its own sound device (a virtual channel). It multiplexes input devices and switches them between apps.

Everything old is new again.

Virtualization of an application?

[Gary W. Longsine]

Uh... on a real operating system that's called a "process". The only reason they need to think in these terms at all is because there is so much broken design in the basic OS. If everything wasn't welded inextricably from everything else, apps wouldn't take down other apps, nor the system when they misbehave, and you wouldn't need to "virtualize just the app! OMG! What a concept!"

Here's a little concept I've been working on. Why don't we use a real OS?

Choose "cry".

[khasim]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry why we even take them so seriously.

Consider what we COULD be doing with the money spent on this.

The Cold War ended. The world was as close to Peace as it has ever been. We could have been investing in so many things to help the human race as a whole.

Instead we're spending trillions of dollars "fighting" a few thousand nutcases who can't do any more damage to the world than we do to ourselves, every year, in traffic accidents.

Re:Choose "cry".

[Xtravar]

The Cold War ended. The world was as close to Peace as it has ever been. We could have been investing in so many things to help the human race as a whole. Hey man, the defense industry needs to eat, too! What, you expect them to go out of business in times of peace?

And this is the problem with militarily-funded businesses. They have incentive to not have peace.

Re:Choose "cry".

[MightyMartian]

The worst part about all of this is the lack of recognition that other parts of the world have been suffering under this very same breed of Jihadist for a lot longer than the US. Both China and Russia have been dealing with this religious nutcases for years prior to 9-11. Heck, part of the reason they're so widespread in the Muslim world is because Saudi Arabia has been exporting its maniacs so that they cease to be its problem.

The West now only concerns itself because suddenly we're the direct targets of their actions. Those actions are wildly successful because they're so visible. The fact that automobile accidents are far more deadly, or that more people die due to choking than the terrorists could ever hope to kill is besides the point. Those aren't sexy, top-of-the-hour, bonechilling, fingernail-biting, paranoia-inducing stories.

I have pointed out to people who think that Jihadists are getting ready to blow up their supermarket that the people of Leningrad and London put up with attacks of such intensity, such lethal effectiveness and such destruction that it makes a hole in the Pentagon and two downed office towers look like a joke.

Re:Choose "cry".

[Entropius]

Grandparent wasn't saying that the world would have been at absolute peace without the US invading Iraq.

But the world was doing pretty well -- sure, the Middle East was trying to kill itself, but it's *always* doing that. The people with the *serious* militaries, however, were at peace. We had a golden opportunity to *not* spend our national wealth on the military; for the first time there were really no serious military threats to Western democracy. We could have done something useful... ... and instead, we go start a dumbshit war that's wasted more American blood and money.

Re:Choose "cry".

[wild_berry]

Peace was not disrupted by the United States

But the intervention across the globe by Western governments since the end of WWII is that disruption of peace which makes enemies of those we and our governments have screwed over.

Re:Choose "cry".

[Hijacked Public]

That is a popular idea, and true to an extent, but it isn't the whole picture.

Many political entities throughout the Middle East and Africa are making war to consolidate power in their own country and use the West as a convenient scapegoat. This isn't much different from what the neo-cons, to use a contemporary example, have done in reverse in the West. Invent some boogeyman, convince your people you can protect them from him, and they will support you.

On a conceptual level Sayeed Kotb's ideas aren't all that different from Leo Strauss'.

Sure many Western governments have encouraged conflicts. Directed them to their benefit. Provided the raw materials. But the total absence of all Western influence wouldn't bring peace, a great many people can still be killed with machetes.

Re:Choose "cry".

[vertinox]

BTW - You seem to be bothered by the label of "religious nutcases" being applied to Tibetans? What makes them so special as to be exempt from this label?

They don't seem to be suicide bombing anyone, taking hostages, or any type of violence nor have had a history of doing so. You can be eccentric with your religion, but I don't think you cross over into the "nutcase" category until you start actually committing violence in the name of your religion.

In fact Tibetan independence has nothing to with religion even though both sides claim so. Technically, China would have claimed the same for Mongolia as always being part of China had not Stalin told Mao to back down.

Re:Choose "cry".

[scuba0]

And that says what, that the US is absolute or what?

Got another for you the US wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Europe, hows that?

It's not terrorism that threatens it

[MikeRT]

It's large-scale immigration from countries that don't share British or American values. Both countries are taking in a lot of immigrants who don't want to integrate. That poses future problems for the culture in our respective countries. Even more so in Britain where it is primarily people from Islamic countries who are convinced that British culture can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

With immigration, we have too much of a good thing. Immigration is good, but only when it is limited to people who actually want to **abandon** their old culture in favor of the new one. Multiculturalism is bullshit. If you like the way it was done back home, then stay there.

Re:It's not terrorism that threatens it

[Ohreally_factor]

You got it exactly right. History repeats itself again and again. Ethnic group immigrates to U.S. Nativists and bigots get frightened and claim that our culture is threatened. Ethnic group settles in and assimilates by the third generation. Repeat process. One hundred years ago it was East Asians that were the threat. Today it's Muslims (in Europe) and Latinos (in the US).

Re:It's not terrorism that threatens it

[cayenne8]

"But the fact of the matter is, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, these immigrants were seen as every bit as alien as Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants are now considered to be, and with good reason! "

Except, the immigrants of old, did not come to your country, and want to out and out destroy it and replace it with a theocracy. They also weren't so willing to do this, that they employed suicide bombers from within their numbers.

They also pretty much immigrated legally...not just sneaking in, and waving their old country's flags at protests. I'd dare say, at least in the old days for the immigrants to the US, they did want to become Americans, to integrate into the larger society, to speak English, etc.

I think those are 2 major differences we see today vs the past.

Re:It's not terrorism that threatens it

[Grishnakh]

I disagree.

It used to be this way with immigrants from Europe, etc. However, it is not this way with Islamic immigrants.

A recent poll in Britain found that most second-generation immigrants want Sharia Law to be instituted there. This isn't the first-generation immigrants from Pakistan and elsewhere; this is their kids, who grew up in Britain. The first-generation immigrants don't seem to be causing any problems; they just want a decent life and job. Their kids are embracing the ways of radical Islam. The same thing is happening in France.

There was a movie about this a while ago, called "My Son the Fanatic". Check it out.

overblown and intrusive, like Vista?

[bzipitidoo]

The security craze has also been a vehicle for agendas that actually are about security, except it's overreaching, excessive, broken, and dysfunctional security for intellectual property owners against MS's customers. Defective by design "security" both for MS themselves (Windows Genuine Advantage), and for the entertainment industry. Any mention of Vista's shortcomings alongside the bit about XP being a security letdown?

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

"It's measured against the current cost of leaving things as they are - if a couple of machines go down every week because of security vulnerabilities, that is a cost which can be measured and taken into consideration. However, if the cost is actually less than the cost of removing the problem , bizarre as it may sound, it might not actually be worth it."

Hmmmm.... Maybe Microsoft really does understand why I refuse to intsall Vista on my network.

Re:Virtualizing Applications

[Paracelcus]

WINE?
Uhh, I thought we were already virtualizing applications with "http://www.winehq.org/"

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[utopianfiat]

Agreed.

Moreover, if one machine goes down due to security vulnerabilities, and it has my social security number on it...

Security or Convenience

[twitter]

I love that false choice. If you have to chose between the two, you don't have either.

"We let you down with XP"

[Chris Mattern]

But now we have something *new* that fixes all those problems! Really! So hand us more money, now!

Chris Mattern

Re:What's the big security problem with XP?

[twitter]

Vista is not selling, so XP must be killed. They do this with every OS, so you might as well imagine that it's 2011 and Win9 is out and they let you down with Vista.

Re:I'm still curious...

[DanQuixote]

Do you not understand the concept of a "slippery slope"?

Do you not realize that treating our fellow citizens with such severe suspicion causes much more damage than the "1/2 hour of lost time"?

The terrorists did not win at the moment the planes hit the buildings, the terrorists only won when Bush announced his war on terror and we sent troops over to Iraq. They continue winning each time someone takes off a shoe because "ooooo, if we don't do this, I might get bombed out of the sky!!!!!"

DON'T ignore the pattern of government abuses! Don't trivialize what's happening. Riley hits the nail on the head when he points out that cost is unaccountably high, and benefit is un-measurably low. Just say no!

Re:I'm still curious...

[Steauengeglase]

When I can't buy certain products because they are now placed on restriction lists, can't read certain materials because they will place me on a terror watch list and my child's education is stifled because once common knowledge is now classified as sensitive state secrets then yeah, my rights have been violated and I notice it.

Tiny Sliver of Hope

[rossz]

People might get the wrong impression that I think all Muslims are murdering terrorists. Not so. There a lots of them who find the actions of the extremists repugnant. The problem is we rarely, if ever, here from them. Print a comic "insulting Mohammad" and there is rioting in the streets. An Islamic extremist murders a bunch of children and the silence is deafening. This MUST change.

Re:I'm still curious...

[Entropius]

How many AVERAGE Americans actually feel that the changes to security have affected them at all?

They have affected the ratio between the tax I pay and the government service I get in return.

I am paying extra taxes for things which benefit nobody.

That TSA screener may not be inconveniencing me that much, but the pothole he's not fixing because he wasn't hired as a construction worker instead may be.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[StingRay02]

Maybe I missed it, but is no one else struck by the hypocrisy of Microsoft criticizing someone else's security measures. Right or wrong, how does their track record of horrendous failures in security qualify them to tell someone else how to do it right? Since when did failure become a path to success?

Oh, wait.

It's Microsoft.

Question answered.

Re:Mod parent up

[MrNaz]

It's legal? Well goody then. It's a good thing our great society has invented this thing called law so we can do away with annoying things like "morality", "ethics" and "values".

Re:What's smart about a false choice?

[Macthorpe]

I had to keep logging in and out of my user and admin accounts all day to get anything done. Then you really don't know enough to comment, unfortunately. Look up a little something called "Run As..." and get back to us, will you?

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[radl33t]

Since when did failure become a path to success?

Ever since scientific thinking birthed our enlightenment.

Who has to do the work and where it shows up.

[twitter]

Now security and functionality can be achieved but make no mistake, security is not convenient, always has, and always will take a lot of work to maintain both in the physical world and in the electronic one. [several false analogies follow]

Like liberty, security is always easier than the alternative. A free and secure system works for me rather than the other way around.

With software, however, it's the programmer that has to put forth the effort, not the user and these don't have to turn up in the interface. When programmers share that effort, like they do with free software, the individual's work load is greatly reduced. It takes me less effort to use a nice free browser on a free system than it does for me to repair an insecure non free system because it's browser has gaping problems.

The kind of "security" M$ has to offer is little more than inconvenience designed to make the user think everything is their fault.

Re:Mod parent up

[b0s0z0ku]

It's legal? Well goody then. It's a good thing our great society has invented this thing called law so we can do away with annoying things like "morality", "ethics" and "values".

If someone comes into a country with the intent of murdering large numbers of its citizens, they should really expect to be well treated. Yeah.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[cmacb]

Not to mention...

As Microsoft always does, now that the NEW version is out, they have suddenly become aware and willing to talk openly about how miserable a failure the OLD version was.

Microsoft continues to go to the bank on the basis of "You CAN fool MOST of the people ALL of the time."

How much longer will this formula work for them?

No, OP is correct

[brunes69]

"Run As" is no solution at all. It is the Windows version of sudo, which is fine for things that SHOULD REQUIRE admin access.

But why should I require admin access to change file associations? Or to install a print driver?

"Run As" is just a crutch around poor design.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[Mister Whirly]

How much longer will this formula work for them?

3027 A.D.

Re:Mod parent up

[Hatta]

If someone comes into a country and is falsely accused of having the intent of murdering large numbers of its citizens, they should really expect to have due process. You act like we can read peoples minds, and we never make mistakes.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[nugneant]

Ten years ago, this would be a really exciting development. Too bad that now, when MS talks about "security", they mean "DRM"... I don't care if I was "let down" with XP, I'm sticking with it into the forseeable future, because at least I know that XP isn't wasting CPU cycles to cripple my content on my computer.

Fuck Vista.

Re:choking death = terrorism

[Xtravar]

Dear Nannystate,

Please ban the sale and manufacture of foods larger than 1 centimeter in size. We could die!

Thanks,
The United Sheep of America

P.S.: This is urgent!! People are dying as we discuss this!

Re:What's smart about a false choice?

[Thrip]

That's why I said your solution cuts the password problem in half. If I use "Run As..." (which I did not know about, so thanks for the information), I don't have to log off, but I still have to enter my admin password repeatedly (which is about equivalent effort to "logging on"). I'm not trying to change the story, just highlight the relevant part. In your initial response, you ignored the most important part of my complaint: that the Windows privilege system seems arbitrary and interferes far too much with a user who's just trying to go about their daily business. By contrast, I very rarely resort to sudo or su on my desktop at home (though I do use sudo a lot on machines where my function is basically administration).

So yeah, maybe people who are more familiar with Windows know ways to make it more livable, but I work with a lot of serious hardcore Windows vets, and they all use admin accounts as their main logon. By contrast, only one guy here regularly gets a root shell on unix (and the rest of us strongly disapprove).

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[EdBear69]

As Microsoft always does, now that the NEW version is out, they have suddenly become aware and willing to talk openly about how miserable a failure the OLD version was. This is Vista marketing at its finest. And in the fine tradition of Microsoft Marketing, it's a FUD attack against the product with the largest market share, in this case WinXP. Never mind that the product in question is put out by the same company.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[moosesocks]

Microsoft's problems have largely lied in their management for the past 10 years or so.

Whenever the management makes one big push, as was done with Vista, things get screwed up horribly. You'd better believe that Microsoft has some very smart people working for them that know a thing or two about security.

The underpinnings of Windows that kept it compatible with old software have made it inherently insecure, and every tiny bug can result in a system-wide breach thanks to the fact that until recently, it was the standard procedure to run every process with unlimited credentials (and most software was written with this assumption in mind)

On my Linux box, Apache runs under its own account that has the permission to serve web pages in /var/www, and is restricted from doing *anything else* at a very low level in the operating system. Windows apps tend to be able to do whatever the hell they want.

The decision to maintain backward compatibility was most definitely made by upper-management, and the security repercussions were almost definitely brought to their attention at some point. It's not at all surprising that there are factions in Microsoft that disagree with this decision

Re:The war on terror...

[cdrguru]

Well, you might be understating things a little bit.

No, there isn't going to be a Muslim army that lands on the beaches and "takes over" the USA. That is silly.

However, we are seeing court decisions implementing Sharia law in Germany for Muslims. What do you think it would take for this to happen in the USA? How far away are we actually from allowing Muslim men to beat their wives with impunity? Would you not call "taking over" our laws?

How about the idea of people having Driver's License pictures taken while wearing a mask? Well, some states now allow fully covered (hajib) women photographed.

How about cab drivers that refuse to take unclean animals (guide dogs) or transport banned beverages (alcholic)? Yes, there is right now a fight over this in several cities.

No, the Muslim army isn't landing anytime soon, but you can start to see evidence that the USA is making over its laws and customs to be more in line with Muslim beliefs.

SoftGrid? Wha?

[bussdriver]

Virtual machines per application?
So next they will want to save RAM and speed things up with pass-thru hooks like what is already done with the virtual network interfaces but taken to the next level... It seems like a bad progression towards an actually working OS... How about we get the OS to WORK with the memory protection and better manage abstracted hardware??

Am I the only one who sees virtual machines as a solution to problems that mostly shouldn't exist or at least not to the severity that one would seriously consider that a solution?

That old argument again...

[__aailob1448]

Muslims have jobs, families, hobbies, STUFF TO DO. Like everybody else.

How about you just assume that your run-of-the-mill Abdullah is outraged and shocked by anything that shocks your run-of-the-mill john doe?

I don't feel guilty anytime a white person kills children and I feel no need to write letters to the editor condemning their actions or going out in the streets chanting "STOP KILLING THE CHILDREN!".

You have to stop thinking of muslims as some sort of borg collective that has decided to remain quiet about the actions of a statistically insignificant amount of crazies.

By your standards, the U.S citizens that elected, re-elected this U.S administration and have not, after almost 5 years, stopped the war in Iraq are even more guilty (count the deaths of muslims and those of americans, guess who wins?) I'm pretty sure that's a classic terrorist argument to justify killing civilians.

Stop judging people so rashly. Stop insulting the billion muslims who condemn terrorism. Kthx.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[myowntrueself]

when MS talks about "security", they mean "DRM"

I always assumed that they were talking about 'financial security'... their own.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[ozmanjusri]

Maybe I missed it, but is no one else struck by the hypocrisy of Microsoft criticizing someone else's security measures.

It's becoming very clear the current US administration is unlikely to win the next election.

Microsoft needs the US government to protect it from standards, open document formats, antitrust prosecutions and any other similar inconveniences.

Expect Microsoft to continue distancing itself from the Bush administration. They need plausible deniability so they can cosy back up with Bush's successors.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[ScrewMaster]

Which kinda gets back to that DRM thing ... they see their financial security in owning distribution of media (movies, music, whatever), and in their minds that means telling us what we can do with our purchases.

We let you down with XP

[wwwillem]

OK, if XP is so bad, does he wants us to go back to Windows 2000. Probably not, so this is just another marketing push to get us from XP to Vista. Yep, it all sounds very embracing, and "we are sorry", but funny coincidence that this talk happens at the same time a new version (which brings in new money) is just released. Duh, isn't this normally called product promotion and shouldn't it happen with Leno or Letterman :-) instead of down-under?

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[SeaFox]

Maybe I missed it, but is no one else struck by the hypocrisy of Microsoft criticizing someone else's security measures. Right or wrong, how does their track record of horrendous failures in security qualify them to tell someone else how to do it right? Since when did failure become a path to success?

Actually, I read this as CYA for Microsoft in government. With computers being as important as they are for the financial health and other aspects of our country, the Dept. of Homeland Security is making cyber-terrorism a higher priority. With that in mind, one sure way to improve security of the world's most critical computer systems is to not having them running an operating system known as a dismal failure at protecting users from malicious attacks.

So, shock shock, Microsoft is going against the grain of it's pro-big-business overlords to say that efforts to improve security to thwart terrorism are overblown, before someone says, maybe "we should switch our government systems to BSD." Otherwise, they may be forced to spend even more time and effort to correct their legacy code mistakes.

Re:Karma gets even with MS!

[Weedlekin]

"it's a FUD attack against the product with the largest market share, in this case WinXP. Never mind that the product in question is put out by the same company."

They did the same when Windows XP was launched by running a set of ads showing the Windows 9X BSOD, and a statement about them being things of the past. Irrespective of whether Slashdotters like it or not, the fact of the matter is that during the last decade, Microsoft's effective monopoly in the desktop OS and office automation markets has resulted in their only effective competition being older versions of their own products. People using these older products who aren't corporates don't make any money for Microsoft at all unless they buy said older products with a new machine, but an upgrade sold to 10% of them would earn as much as converting every OS X and Linux desktop out there to Windows, and they'd obviously like much more than 10% of their current users to upgrade, and they won't achieve that by telling them that what they already have is arse-kickingly fabulous.