Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft No Longer a 'Laughingstock' of Security?
Toreo asesino writes "In a Q&A with Scott Charney, the vice president of Trustworthy Computing at Microsoft, Charney suggests that security in Microsoft products has moved on from being the 'laughing stock' of the IT industry to something more respectable. He largely attributes this to the new Security Development Lifecycle implemented in development practices nearly six years ago. 'The challenge is really quite often in dealing with unrealistic expectations. We still have vulnerabilities in our code, and we'll never reduce them to zero. So sometimes we will have a vulnerability and people say to me, "So the [Security Development Lifecycle (SDL)] is a failure right?" No it isn't. It was our aspirational goal that the SDL will get rid of every bug.'"
I'm sorry, respect in security is like with all kinds of respect. It is earned, not demanded or bought.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
So Microsoft is so secure that those botnets with hundreds of thousands of zombie computers running Windows will disappear overnight? Great!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I think a good example of this is how many security problems have been found in IIS in recent years. For example, go to the MS Security Bulletin site and look up bulletins for IIS 6.0 compared to IIS 5.0 -- http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx.
There are only two "Important" bulletins for IIS 6, while IIS 5 has almost 30 bulletins over the same inital time period. It is amazing how far IIS has come since that nightmare that was IIS 4.
ÕÕ
Sorry, I don't see why this story is even here. Microsoft has been telling bald-faced lies about their security for at least a decade. What's different this time?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Unfortunately, Microsoft's security problems are masked, not fixed. Seriously, software firewalls should not need to exist. All software firewalls do is cripple other code running on the OS (drivers, services, programs, etc). Fix the underlying code and don't default to running services that home users will never need and, presto, no need for a firewall...
Someone at M$: "XP with IE is full of 'critical' security holes."
Someone's manager: "Let's write a firewall and we can get away with calling those security holes 'important' and not fix them."
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
I love this comment. It's such an interesting insight into the mind of a Microsoft guy:
Look, that bridge in Minnesota just collapsed. How long have we been building bridges? We know how to build bridges, right? Sometimes people just have unrealistic expectations of what we can do.
I don't know anyone who thinks a major bridge in major US city in the richest country in the world not collapsing is an "unrealistic expectation". I actually DO agree that having zero security holes in any software as large as Windows (or Linux) is an unrealistic goal. Comparing that to a major bridge disaster that never should have happened is kind of a strange comparison though.
AccountKiller
Yes, it is the fault of the OS. No, linux isn't any better in this regard. They all essentially use the multi-user (on a single box), non-networked security models devised in the late 60s and early 70s.
Why should downloaded (i.e. tainted / potentially unsafe) code have any rights at all except to its own files by default? Should it be able to read your documents, open a network connection and send them out? Should it be able to format your disk? Hell, why even have a globally accessible file system at all?
We can't improve the users much, so we're going to have to improve the OS. Actually, some of the early security models were much better than the ones we use now, but carried too much overhead for the machines of the day.
Yes, they had.
But the problem was that that port was left OPEN on machines that DID NOT NEED IT OPEN.
With security, you CANNOT rely upon the end user to keep current on patches. Your system HAS to be able to defend itself WITHOUT those patches.
And the simple way to do that is to not have ANY open ports by default.
Security is a process. You are arguing about the high end, theoretical levels
You know, the little things, like always remembering your </i>, and never forgetting to preview your work.
Glass houses.
Projectile stones.
Whatever.
...the first to admit then that all other operating systems and vendors have said the same thing time and time again, including yours truly "Linux".While I certainly wouldn't say that the three have perfect security (and certainly not WRT dumb admin/user mistakes), I can say with confidence that they can rightfully be claimed as being among the most secure out there. Windows cannot, not has ever been, able to credibly claim that. Whether it can do so in the future remains to be seen.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"One of the things I talk about often is my mom, because she is 78 and she's found e-mail .. You have to educate consumers not to make mistakes like clicking on attachments from unknown sources and not following links and all of that"
..
...
No, all you have to do is build a Desktop System that can't be compromised by opening an e-mail attachment or clicking on a URL
"more people are like, 'Microsoft got its act together, and others should follow their lead,' technologists say, 'OK, our job is done -- what next?'"
"What I explain to people is that this isn't actually a technology problem we are solving; it's a crime problem"
Self serving imaginary made up quotes and a nonsensical opinion expressed. Making it a twenty year felony crime for hacking Windows isn't going to make Windows any more secure
davecb5620@gmail.com
Wait a sec. Don't project your own values onto a group that may not share them, nor assume a causal relationship where no data has been shown to indicate one.
So the claim is that it's no longer a laughing stock in the realm of security. All right then. Let's pretend for a moment that claim is true. The next question is why?
There are at least two possible answers:
We can see from the systems affected by vulnerabilities that the former has not happened, no redesign. Maybe it's the latter, better PR.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
It seems kind of funny to me to hear someone from Microsoft admit that they were a laughingstock, and that they're looking for kudos for not being a laughingstock.
This is classic Microsoft MO: as soon as a Windows version has been released for a few months, start badmouthing the previous versions. They did the same with XP to 2K/ME, ME to 98, NT4 to NT 3.5, etc.
Just Vista marketing. Nothing to see here, move along.