Slashdot Mirror
US Security Services May 'Have Moles Within Microsoft,' Says Researcher
Barence writes "U.S. government officials could be working under cover at Microsoft to help the country's cyber-espionage programme, according to one leading security expert. According to Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at security firm F-Secure, the claim is a logical conclusion to a series of recent discoveries and disclosures linking the U.S. government to 2010's Stuxnet attack on Iran and ties between Stuxnet and the recent Flame attack. 'It's plausible that if there is an operation under way and being run by a U.S. intelligence agency it would make perfect sense for them to plant moles inside Microsoft to assist in pulling it off, just as they would in any other undercover operation,' he said. 'It's not certain, but it would be common sense to expect they would do that.'"
... or they just paid/threatened Microsoft. Much simpler and easier.
The US Government has licenses for the Windows source code. Nothing we've seen those virii do have required anything more than that.
What would surprise me, is if the US thinks they're the only one.
dont forget security companies and firms... and yes it does make lots of sense.
I doubt Microsoft would balk at any requests at access. These are, after all, matters of national security, and are therefore paramount over all other concerns. No decent American (ahem) company could refuse.
No surprises here.
They THINK there MIGHT be moles inside Microsoft. ("Definitive proof!" says Alex on his radio show.) That's nice. I think their might be moles inside everybody's backyards..... I haven't actually seen any, but let's publish it anyway and scare everyone.
1. Publish some random guy
2. Spin it to make it sound factual "evidence"
3. $profit$
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Seriously, they might be undercover from some but not the ones that do the hiring. That way they could get in just the right posisition to be in.
"Foreign government officials could be working under cover at Microsoft".
Since many/much of the actual development is overseas anyway.
I don't see how working at microsoft would give you any advantage at making Stuxnet or Flame. It's not like Microsoft put secret holes in their OS so people in MS can access everyone's computer. Probably my mom wrote that article.
Government: "Hello there, Microsoft. This here is a really big gun. We want your source code."
Microsoft: "Ummm, okay."
The End
What's this crap about a mole again? Moles are for when you can't just walk in the front door and take whatever you want.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Then obviously they don't really know for sure (so says Betteridge's Law of Headlines).
Stuxnet, duqu, flame all these malware is found by russian security companies.
My guess is that all western security companies are infiltrated by spooks
Why Microsoft? Wouldn't it be Siemens or other industrial equipment/control manufactures that are involved with *industrial equipment*?
Now I'm not saying there are moles at Microsoft and Apple, but neither of them have reported back to me either way.
So, what are they hiding?
I totally believe it. Apple had a mole in the board room. He allegedly stole plans for the iPhone and took them to Google.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
They pay MS like every other super-power. They also pay colleges and other vendors to discover exploits that aren't made public. Even if they had moles, it wouldn't be USSS agents.
moderation undone.
Every major government around the world ALREADY has access to Windows source code. Starting in 2001, when Microsoft's security started being a major focus, they began a program to grant access to the code to interested parties.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/government-security-program.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/
Let's not beat around the bush! I say Microsoft has known USG agents working on the systems intentionally putting holes in the OS that can then be leveraged for zero-day attacks against other governments. Balmer is in cahoots I say! CAHOOTS!
just a heads up so you don't look like such a clown in the future.
You don't need a big gun to get the MS source code. It isn't some big fucking secret like all the ./ers seem to think. It isn't GPL, but plenty of institutions have copies. Basically any government that uses Windows does, huge surprise there. Also a lot of research universities. One such university I know that has it is ASU. Then there are copies in the hands of partners for better debugging/integration of their products.
Just because the source isn't on Sourceforge, doesn't mean it is some massive secret. A bit of Google would get you http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/default.aspx which is MS's page on their source sharing.
The question should be, whether these moles will lead to skin cancer, and if Microsoft should limit's exposure to the sun to counter balance them.
Author of TFA dreams up some impossible to falsify idea - offers no supporting evidence of any kind except to say it is plausable.
I love myself a good MS conspiracy and I'm sure there are plenty which actually do exist but lets not reward intellectual laziness.
Just two questions:
1. What do editors of PC Pro get paid to do?
2. What is it doing on slashdot?
Now if you'll excuse me my magic unicorn 'Flame' is hungry and wants a bowl of lucky charms before flying back to the land of lua to meet the angry birds.
...put a worm in apple?
They (MSM) pretty much fixed that by stopping the reporting on how much time is taken away and how much it costs now. Unless some whistle blower publishes shit like the GSA Vegas party, you won't see it on MSM.
Fox, NBC and ABC even justified the GSA party claiming that "Private business do this sort of thing all the time.". It's a very obvious game of "don't look at this thing, go look at that shiny thing!". Unfortunately people happily frolic to the distraction, so your facts do no good. People don't want facts, they want shiny things to look at.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The answer to headlines that end with a question mark:
No.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1) The fact that it's common sense does not mean the government is doing it
2) If it's common sense, why is it worthy of news?
And these same "agents" could easily become FOSS developers too. I see no reason why a few whorey geeks, bottles of M-Dew and some pizzas couldn't be stuffed into some cozy realm of the Pentagon. Ubuntu, for example, has how many millions of lines of code? Can it all be reviewed adequately? Since the first time I saw the bleedin thing, I always did suspect Unity was designed by some classified DARPA psyops division, perhaps with intent to induce mass suicides amongst the last front of technological freedom fighters.
#Duh
"Didn't the NSA offer to help 'secure' windows 7 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141105/NSA_helped_with_Windows_7_development)" - by Sir_Sri (199544) on Friday June 15, @12:54PM (#40336511)
SeLinux bearing distros, specifically? See here -> http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/
They didn't just "offer" to help, they did... only question is, per what YOU ARE ALLUDING TO/IMPLYING? How much so and for WHAT reasons??
(Absolutely - so, that "all said & aside", mainly from you regarding the NSA & Windows: CAN YOU TRUST Linux TOO?)
APK
P.S.=> Your 'argument' is like a razor that CUTS BOTH WAYS... & we'll tolerate NO 'FUD' here today!
... apk
I think it is a matter of time before US media is banned from reporting on the findings by computer security experts - especially the uncontrollable ones in Russia and Finland - under the guise that it aides and abets terrerists.
If it's truly beneficial to have moles in software companies, you can expect that China and maybe Russia also have them too.. The only benefit seems to be the certificates and access the update servers.
I feel that there is no doubt that Microsoft products have been altered to please the government one way or another. I am also suspicious of encryption programs as they are exactly the kind of spot an intelligence agency would target for control.
It is the very nature of governments that free and open communications between people will never exist. In order to perpetuate a government's existence there will always be a great deal of covert activity directed at the population.
Read more about what actually happened. Microsoft was using some keys with md5 hashing that weren't properly set to prohibit their use for code signing and those keys were signed by the Microsoft root. Using a collision attack they created a copy of a signed key and used that to sign their code.
Brief Explanation:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2012/06/03/microsoft-certification-authority-signing-certificates-added-to-the-untrusted-certificate-store.aspx
Detailed Explanation:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2012/06/06/more-information-about-the-digital-certificates-used-to-sign-the-flame-malware.aspx
Hotfix MS just published to speed up the revocation process:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/pki/archive/2012/06/12/announcing-the-automated-updater-of-untrustworthy-certificates-and-keys.aspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2677070
there are microsoft moles masking as linux developers,
the real gremlins that keep linux off the desktop.
Why would hte government bother with moles when it can just read the Microsoft engineers minds from it's spy satellites. It's common sense that they'd be doing this.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Is the bigger question not "How many NSA agnets code holes into Linux/BSD". Also, with those companies that sell exploits (with government customers), how many for-profit without-morals hackers are coding holes in these projects and selling exploits on?
"pictures of him cleaning brush out?"
And you present this as proof no state work was done. Provide evidence, which of course you cannot, or admit you have no point.
And you are right these were not vacations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-campaigner-in-chief/2012/04/30/gIQATAfbsT_story.html
"Obama has managed to take things to a whole new level. According to statistics compiled for a book to be published this summer, the president has already set a record for total first-term fundraisers — 191 — and that’s only through March 6. Measured in terms of events that benefit his reelection bid, Obama’s total (inflated in part by relaxed fundraising rules) exceeds the combined total of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter."
Campaigner in chief.
Keep trying drone, but you are going to have to work a *lot* harder to keep covering for the statist.
One of these days I've GOT to buy some stock in companies making aluminum......
There's lots of good money to be made in hats.
is for the security and safety of other national interests to avoid using MS Windows at all, since it is most obviously being seeded with vulnerabilities.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
There are probably spies from every country on earth working inside M$. You'd be crazy not to try and get on the inside.
They're not exclusive and the government doesn't trust Microsoft either. Sure, pretend to partner with Microsoft and put in some explicit backdoors. Just make sure that there are a few Microsoft doesn't know about too.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
US security forces may have agents anywhere. They could be living in my desk as I type this...
1. DUH
2. "May have". Yeah, that's news. Meaningless. They "may not have" too. Is there something specific somebody has to say, with something to back it up other than a closed circle of "may have"?
3. Speculation is fact on Slashdot. This warrants an article, why? Is there NEWS here, or are we going to see "space aliens MAY HAVE dressed up like call-boys and 'anally probed' the editorial staff"?
Wankers.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
"An intelligence service is the ideal vehicle for a conspiracy." - Allen Dulles
"The CIA have never been an intelligence organisation. The CIA's motto is to protect American business interests. The CIA cherry picks its intelligence to suit its business goals." Hitler was a British Agent by Greg Hallett
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --William Colby
A few years back, I had opportunity to interview at Microsoft for an engineering position.
During one of the interviews, they wanted me to high-level design a system that could determine which versions of libraries exist on a remote machine *without* accessing the file-system directly.
This is the kind of thinking that inspires Microsoft and inspired me to leave.
"Moles" assumes they don't have permission. Years ago I hypothesized one of the reasons the government backed off anti-competitive lawsuits was MS agreed to aid the government in spying through OS backdoors.
Of course, starting to "donate" to politicians (the real reason behind the laws in the first place, regulators and attorneys general being classical "useful idiots") also helped too.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
'It's not certain, but it would be common sense to expect they would do that.'"
Translation: "I pulled this out of my ass... but it has so much truthiness!"
You know, when the discovery of an driving game in Excel 2000 was the earth-shattering revelation of the year. The current crop of hidden "features" kind a gives new meaning to the term "Easter egg", no?
Oh, and get off my lawn...
The federal government alreadys gets tracking codes inserted on laser printer output:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography
I'm not sure why they'd work under cover when they're getting what they want without being secreative in the printer sector.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqrI3IibYI
"Are taxes too low?"
No.
"Are taxes too high?"
No.
"Are taxes just right?"
No.
Wait, what? It's gotta be one of those three. You're hypothesis that the answer to a headline that is a question is always "no" is false.
...is total surveillance bliss, ain't it?
All you have done is post what vacations Obama has taken without listing Bushies vacations.
You are convincing nobody but yourself.
It's a good thing no US government employees have ever contributed to Linux or GNU. We'd all be screwed then.
No, wait..
"virii" is not a word.
Considering that probably 90% of the world's information is gathered, produced, or stored by Microsoft software, and that the US Security services are above all an information retrieval service, they would be completely incompetent if they did not have some sort of special 'relationship' with Microsoft.
Even with official channels, it is always better to have someone on the inside who can verify or enhance the publicly available information.
I would say that if they don't have moles in Microsoft, they aren't doing their jobs correctly.
This would amount to surveillance of a US person (U.S.-owned corporation in this case), and would be quite illegal. Believe it or not, that does actually make it unlikely. There is a good deal of mindfulness of law within these agencies - it's usually the outsider appointees/elected officials that don't have the same respect for u.s. citizens/law.
In any event, 'moles' seem very unlikely, as Microsoft has a great relationship with U.S. intelligence agencies. There are patriots at MS who would likely be lining up to support the country's efforts.
Uh, you're the one claiming that Bush worked harder than Obama on vacation.
Pretty sure the onus is on you to provide proof.
would risk running MS Windows spyware is beyond me. For that matter, why do U.S. corporations and governments risk running hardware produced in Asia?
Microsoft welcomed them through many years ago.
M00V^g 0N
Why would the government of countries such as Iran, run closed source software from openly unfriendly countries such as the US?
They should either be writing their own, or at the very least using open source so they can thoroughly audit it.
Same applies to hardware, they don't need to develop their own hardware from scratch, just use published designs, inspect them and then manufacture their own.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
ftfy
Destabilizers! Destabilizers! Destabilizers! Destabilizers!
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
You're Welcome.
They're in Microsoft, for sure.
They have purple badges instead of blue for FTE, or orange for contractor. (Purple used to mean all-access; in a way it still does.)
Instead of vendor "v-" email addresses (for billable people), they have "business associate" "b-" email addresses (meaning they're on someone else's payroll).
Does that somehow qualify as a mole?
All they have to do is walk up to Microsoft and tell them they WILL do xyz. And let them know if they reveal it, they are violating national security and will be jailed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Bert64 - Microsoft's licensed out their sourcecode to others before - & in regards to this from you:
"If you're a national government, then you certainly have the resources to inspect linux, and you'd be foolish not to inspect the software you use for critical infrastructure. Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage
Ahem... Bert64:
Do you honestly *THINK* that others besides Microsoft don't have the sourcecode to Windows to inspect the very things you noted?
* Especially governments?? Heck - even educational institutions have copies...
(Guess again Bert64... you usually do a LOT better than that by the by, so I am guessing you're NOT yourself today!)
However, & above all else? I think you just don't like how I turned around the argument of the person I replied to back on him, & the same appears to have happened to you now also, thus, I don't suspect you're "@ peak" today, because you usually don't err like that.
APK
P.S.=> Yes, your very argument can be turned against you just as I turned the erroneous argument of the person I replied to against him on the same grounds here (the NSA messing with Linux to create SeLinux) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40337001
...apk
Article is misdirection. If you can not figure it out, you have not been paying attention.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
echo .. 'ol' ...
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
if this is not anti-propaganda its actually FrontPage ubuntu new cos the soft there gets checked by the whole community and moles would have a very slim chance of getting a snippet into the major distribution (as opposed to etcete)
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Shortly after we loaded Microsoft's Command Navigation Program hotfix, we were out cruising in our Battlestar when, poof, all our systems went offline and, a few seconds later, in came the nukes...
geek. lawyer.
Have gnu, will travel.
Silly human =)
I suspect the opposite, Microsoft has infiltrated the US government...
That was clear, I was just extending a few thoughts to what you wrote :D
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Wrong with your first statement, the majority of the worlds data is on Unix or Unix like systems. Desktop files (.doc, .xls, etc..) are an extremely small portion of the worlds data. The rest of your statement is agreeable.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"You don't seem to have made an argument. You had a some random gibberish and a link about a secure version of linux, which has nothing to do with what I was saying." - by Sir_Sri (199544) on Saturday June 16, @01:09AM (#40342365)
1st: You implied the NSA has offered to "help 'secure' Windows" (which implies they only looked for ways to be able to "backdoor" their way into Windows).
2nd: I merely showed the NSA actually DID HAVE A HAND IN 'securing' Linux, via SeLinux (which YOU obviously weren't aware of)... so, how do you know they didn't put in "backdoors" they can bust into easily (just like you implied for Windows)?
---
"What educational institutions, or governments have source code to windows?" - by Sir_Sri (199544) on Saturday June 16, @01:09AM (#40342365)
Take a look @ these links & get back to me after:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1
* As the saying goes? "Here endeth the lesson"...
APK
P.S.=> So much for you... apk
1st: You implied the NSA has offered to "help 'secure' Windows" (which implies they only looked for ways to be able to "backdoor" their way into Windows).
2nd: I merely showed the NSA actually DID HAVE A HAND IN 'securing' Linux, via SeLinux (which YOU obviously weren't aware of)... so, how do you know they didn't put in "backdoors" they can bust into easily (just like you implied for Windows)?
---
"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage
FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367
Yes, you did... THUS, to that?
Well then, I will simply point to what I did for Sir Siri (the only person whose argument I turned against them regarding the NSA producing SeLinux, where he implied they offered to 'secure' Windows (obviously meaning to 'backdoor' their way into it)):
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1
* BOTH links show governments AND educational institutions that have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)...
(As I said to Sir Siri? "Here endeth the lesson"...)
APK
P.S.=> As you can see from those links, more than a few governments (including the US Gov't.) have access to Windows source, as well as educational institutions, providing EXACTLY THAT WHICH YOU NOTED FOR LINUX - 3rd parties can & DO peruse Windows source to learn from it, and to shore it up via inspections... above & beyond those from Microsoft (& they get EXCELLENT TALENT, or doesn't Mr. Anders Heijelsberg + Dr. Mark Russinovich ring a bell there as to names I can drop?)... apk
Duh Of The Week.
OK so everyone already knew this was true only because it's stands to reason. So let's play a game. Why was this :story released as "news"?
Here's my guess. The government is trying to send a message to young geeks. Hey kids- don't think that your hacker skills or career path are orthogonal to becoming a spy! We're very interested in your skills and you can be part of something that really matters.
Just my guess.
Security firm F-Secure, can I stop laughing now? Misdirection doesn't just work for magic shows.
.. as a full time vendor and I've never seen any under cover federal agents. This must be a false flag news story of some kind.
I didn't misread anything. You stated what I quoted here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40343179 of:
"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage
---
1.) I showed that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source!
2.) That they have it in governments and educational institutions as some examples I provided!
3.) The links are relevant - they prove the very point I noted by showing who/what/where/why/how they had the sourcecode to Windows.
---
* Bert64 - You can try to change your story as you go but it only looks like trying to cover up your mistake by this point...
APK
P.S.=> This has nothing to do with myself @ this point after the above evidences of your own words, plus links with proof that show you are indeed, in error in said quoted statement from you!
Thus - I merely pointed out your errors, and now you're trying to "cover up" for them by altering your initial statements, which again, are quoted above & show you with your pants down in that very quote (because it is in BLATANT error... period, and you know it, since your reaction now shows it)... apk
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40336511
APK
P.S.=> After all - he was implying that the NSA built in possible backdoors with his obvious sarcasm in stating they offered to 'secure' Windows, but they certainly DID MORE THAN OFFER THAT HELP FOR LINUX via SeLinux!
Now - whether they actually BUILT backdoors into Linux is another question (because I don't have proof they did, but I never made any sarcastic statements they did either - I only provided proof as to what & where they have altered it, and that's Linux).
Yes, they certainly had their hand in Linux, no questions asked, and in ANY SeLinux bearing distro - but perhaps ABOVE ALL ELSE here?
Well, I see no proofs from he or others replying here now as to them actually altering Windows' sourcecode... apk
Funny - the USA, Russia, China, & Colleges aren't independent of one another? Sorry - beg to differ... that, or you know something I don't!
"And your examples are not truly independent because they are all beholden to the (rather restrictive) agreement under which they receive the source, so my original statement still applies." - by Bert64 (520050) on Sunday June 17, @10:19AM (#40351271) Homepage
It applies alright - to show you were in error Bert64... no qusetions asked: Others, MANY INDEPENDENT OTHERS, have the sourcecode to Windows (legally & others besides that have it, see below)!
* Then you later tried to "change your story"... saying they're "not independent of one another?? Come on... you messed up, period.
APK
P.S.=> As to this? Well, since the others above had to sign an NDA (even though they're NOT the same as one another, different nations even, as well as educational institutions)??
"Have you actually read the terms an organisation has to agree with in order to qualify for the shared source program?" - by Bert64 (520050) on Sunday June 17, @10:19AM (#40351271) Homepage
Ahem: Bert64 - I don't HAVE to, to realize that universiites != nations, & that one nation (russia for example) != another nation (china) OR educational institutions (they certainly are NOT nations/governments)...
It's common-sense, & yet, you seem to have "issues" with that (no, you don't - it's just your PRIDE @ this point you're attempting to save imo)
Others have the source too, by-the-by: However, by "nefarious" means -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA
Bert64 - By the way: They didn't sign any NDA Bert64, did they? Of course not!
Bert64 - so, your "latest 'out'" attempt here, which didn't work anyway (since nations != colleges and diff. nations are NOT THE SAME)??
Easily "dusted/blown away", by yours truly, once more, easily (too easily)... apk
Get back to us then, ok? Also - please: Give us SOME credit, won't you? We're not that stupid... lol, I mean, come on:
Tell you what - when China = Russia = US Government = Collegiate Academics = Hackers/Crackers THAT ALL HAVE WINDOWS' SOURCECODE? Get back to us then... ok?
* Bert64, listen: There's NO WAY you can even begin to attempt to tell us they're NOT INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER, & don't have different goals... because obviously, they do (& there's NO NDA on the hacker/cracker types that have the source to it either).
(Seriously man... you're "reaching", & falling FAR SHORT of the mark!)
APK
P.S.=> You just will not admit you screwed up stating that others don't have sourcecode to Microsoft Windows, because many independent others do, and some not even under NDA either (since you're attempting to cling to THAT to try "cover up" your mistakes)... it's astounding... apk
ARE independent of one another & with DIFFERENT GOALS, no questions asked!
Until then? Get a dose of reality!
* You're just "reaching" for straws to try to save your pride from your mistakes here Bert64 - nothing more...
(With your stating nobody has access to Windows' sourcecode (because as you can see from my posts? MANY INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS (independent of one another), DO!))
APK
P.S.=> You can't even FACE when you screwed up bigtime stating this here:
"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage
FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367
You NEED to see contrary proofs, & here they are again:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1
BOTH links show governments AND educational institutions that have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)...
As well as hacker/cracker types having copies as well which I posted here:
Others have the source too, by-the-by - However, by "nefarious" means -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA
Bert64 - You can't own up to your mistakes either it seems... apk
"Your mention of hackers is grasping... Microsoft never intentionally made source available to them and they can only use it for further nefarious means as anyone who published a vulnerability they found in illegally acquired sourcecode would be running serious risk.." - by Bert64 (520050) on Tuesday June 19, @10:26AM (#40369717) Homepage
1st of all - MS DID MAKE SOURCE INTENTIONALLY AVAILABLE THOUGH, to educational institutions + goverments even, & you LITERALLY STATED THEY DID NOT (see quote of your words below, yet again)...
I simply proved otherwise with actual evidences, vs. your clearly ERRONEOUS STATEMENT quoted below in my p.s....
2nd: LMAO - funny part's ANYONE can hack/crack Linux by taking the sourcecode provided & step-trace in a compiler, step-tracing & analyzing it & FAR MORE EASILY than trying it on closed source code using kernel level debuggers like WinDbg or fuzzers, to find the "security holes" in it...
(Which, of course, also makes it far more dangerous in that capacity, and one doesn't HAVE TO BE A HACKER/CRACKER TO DO IT either... Linux "doth provide" easier means!)
* Or, are you going to *try* tell us now that checking actual sourcecode traced in a compiler is HARDER than operating with kernel level debuggers over closed sourcecode?
(That'd be another HUGE LAUGH if you did... I've done both & there is a HUGE WORLD OF DIFFERENCE IN THE DIFFICULTY LEVEL (especially working with kernel level debuggers & assembly language stop dumps... vs. actual sourcecode (that Linux DOES provide & yes, it has that downside, which can be an upside, but a downside nonetheless also - a double-edged sword))
---
"What it does show however, is that a closed source model provides significant advantages to the blackhats at the expense of legitimate researchers and end users.." - by Bert64 (520050) on Tuesday June 19, @10:26AM (#40369717) Homepage
Thanks for making my point above for me Bert64, with THAT statement from you!
Yes - because I KNEW YOU'D GO FOR THE "STD. FUD MANTRA" of "Open SORES is better for catching errors in security", but THAT? That works BOTH ways, for security researchers AND hacker/cracker types!
Yes - sure is, because of the above (easier to do than doing it to closed source code & operating with kernel level debuggers like WinDbg, by far...)
("Played you like a fiddle" on that one too... lol!)
---
"Independent of one another in any other field is irrelevant, they cannot act independently of microsoft with the source." - by Bert64 (520050) on Tuesday June 19, @10:26AM (#40369717) Homepage
Funny then when I pointed out hacker/crackers that did, see my p.s.' closing section below, last link/url
(So, so much for THAT from you (not that it matters, because your original statement was TYPICAL "Pro-*NIX 'FUD'" & nothing more, & you know it, I KNOW IT, anyone reading knows it - and I caught you in it... period.))
(Also/again - The USA, USSR, China, Russia & numerous academic institutions are NOT the same, and defintely pursue differing goals... despite your FUD statement I have quoted & requoted from you!)
APK
P.S.=> Requoting Bert64's errroneous statement once more for everyone's reference vs. my statements AND PROOFS to the contrary, as well as evidences I used to disprove it totally:
"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage
FROM ->
Position 20 onwards in the youtube video control here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Attt4dVu0U&feature=related
* Where Bert64's "FUD" words not only got him floored, but also "pinned" under the weight of his own erroneous words (Thor's Hammer)... & now he can't get out from under them... lol, see my 'p.s.' below!
APK
P.S.=>
"Even if you can't or won't inspect the linux source, you at least gain some assurance from the fact that many independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage." - by Bert64 (520050) on Friday June 15, @05:03PM (#40339367) Homepage
FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2918717&cid=40339367
B.S. to the above quote from you! Who/what/when/where/how/why? These links below disprove your words with ease:
A.) Governments
B.) Educational institutions
C.) HACKER/CRACKER types
That have access to Windows' sourcecode, AND, they are 3rd parties that can examine it for flaws (or to learn from it)... and?
Yes - They definitely have DIFFERENT GOALS!
---
GOVERNMENTS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+sourcecode%22+and+%22government%22&btnG=Search&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1
---
COLLEGES WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+source+code%22+and+%22educational%22&sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&gbv=1&sa=X&spell=1
---
CRACKERS WITH WINDOWS' SOURCECODE:
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Windows+2000+sourcecode%22+and+%22stolen%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=Vi3eT9XRAoqr6QHXsaGKDA
---
BOTTOM-LINE: YOU ARE OFF/WRONG BERT64 - period... & I floored your attempt @ "FUD", as-per-usual, & YOU KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as is per my own "inimitable style::
This?
This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"
You made it so!
Now, watching you *trying* to get out from under the weight of your errors by mincing words that don't change a damn thing you initially stated in falsehoolds shown above? Priceless...
( & a LOT like watching the Hulk in that video trying to lift Mjolnir, after Thor "WAPS" him with it, lol!)
... apkmany independent people with differing goals are able to see the source. Again, this is something windows simply doesn't provide."