Microsoft Openly Provides Kerberos Interop Specs

konstant writes: "Microsoft has published a document on its TechNet security site providing most of the information in the infamous CAB file plus sample code. There appears to be no onerous license this time." Well, it's not the *whole thing* but has lots of useful info about Microsoft's Kerberos implementation. Strange note: the page where this appears has a footer that says, "Last updated January 21, 2000," but when I did a search on Microsoft.com during our little tussle with them last month, I didn't find it.

Just a scam perhaps?

This action seems odd to me, allthough not surprising. When they want to push this new kerberos system they got no other choice then to make the specs publicly available sooner or later, otherwise I doubt anyone would use it. If the choice is between a "secured" document or a commonly available one, which would be your pick?

But this does makes you wonder.. Could it be that /.'s hassle with MS was just MS's way in following the saying "it doesn't matter how they talk about you as long as they are talking about you.", which they've done before? The last (afaik also proven) example of this behaviour was during the introduction of Windows 95. There were quite some rumours going on that the OS was massivly spread by hackers (according to the local news, we call 'm warez weenies) but in the end it turned out that it was MS itself who spread those 'illegal' copies. Another scheme to get the whole campain on the news without the extra commercial costs.

If this theory is correct, and please not that I'm not stating that it is, the remaining question would be "why /. ?". Well, it is a fact that a lot of technical skilled people hang out on Slashdot. This kind of information is only interessting for people who actually know a little bit more about stuff like this. But I'm quite positive that this thread gets far more attention now that /. had a little hassle with MS about this very same issue. At least among regular /. readers.

IMHO

Microsoft was never really the dominant power that it has had the image of being. I think that the world and the company was under the illusion that they were, but you'll notice that NT has never been the true dominant enterprise server, that there really are more machines that at least look like unix than ones the run windows, and that standards really do reign. What M$ had power over was their users, which while that was the significant desktop market, that has never been where the REAL power in computing was. For M$ to ever be a real dominant company in the computer science realm, you would have to see supercomputers and mainframes that run windows, and you don't, because it's not a suitable market for them. Microsoft has always had to at least meet the standards part way, otherwise nothing would ever have worked under windows. The real problem is where they "embrace and extend" things into the proprietary realm, which has been destroying good standards for some time now. I think that they are learning the lesson that you don't take, for instance, Java, and make it only work under windows. We may start looking at an era where M$ is a real rival and not just a company that holds a bigger market share (no offense guys, it just pisses people off when you wreck our perfectly good software).

As I understand it, that's the point

The last release was copyrighted (because it was a published work) AND labelled a "trade secret". It was this second designation that allowed MS (or so they thought) to add "so don't use this to create your own implementation" to the license.

With only a copyright, this essentially becomes a "how to implement MS Kerb" book--you can use it to create an implementation but you can't copy the text. Just like any other book.
--

Whoa, Microsoft supporting GNU tools?

An excerpt:

Building Sample Data Files

[..]

The following files are needed for building in the Solaris environment, using the Kerberos 5 GSSAPI:

Usre_id.h
User_id.c
K_server.h
Gssapi_k_server.c

Using the GNU GCC compiler, the command line should be:

%gcc -c PDP.c6 user_id.c Gssapi_k_server.c -lgssapi_krb5 -lkrb5

Wow, MS is recommending interoperability with Solaris using GCC! Personally, I never thought I'd live to see this.

What's Missing? Thing MacGyver

I wasn't the only geek who grew up watching MacGuyver. Essentially, an hour long show(with a great theme song) of Ad Hoc Geekdom saving the world on a regular basis. Great TV; I'm sorry it's gone.

For all the fears about bombmaking information on the Internet, MacGyver in its time never needed to worry it was really teaching kids how to make any form of explosive--while most of the steps were technically accurate(usually), something was always left out so that kids wouln't blow off their fingers and sue the production company.

My question here is, has Microsoft left something out, something minor and non-obvious but critical to successful reimplementation? I'm not accusing them of doing this, but I am interested in what's been removed from the public documentation. Now, it's likely to be nothing--there's more likely more than a few very pissed off Kerberos developers within Microsoft, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if them and a few "volunteer managers" were starting to get fed up with being used as pawns, particularly with the stock price falling so precipitously. The entire Kerberos debacle was a embarassment for everyone involved and I'm sure MS Upper Management figured that out reasonably quickly.

But still, the question remains: Has anything substantive been removed from these pubic documents?

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Did MS back off or what?

but when I did a search on Microsoft.com during our little tussle with them last month, I didn't find it.

What ever happened with that tussle, anyhow? Did MS slink away when Andover's lawyers got tough or what?

-carl

Wrong Dates

Yeah, we used to put the wrong dates on our timecards just to avoid managerial and legal tussle too. It happens.

As for the spec. I think that Microsoft realizes that nobody will adopt their software if it doesn't work in the existing infastructure, and doesn't conform. I mean, I can call Java C++ all I want, but it doesn't mean that Java is C++, and programmers trying to use it to write C++ will go with a different compiler. Get it? Whether they found it morally right or wrong, they are beginning to see that they have to start playing nice, or die after they are split up.

Close, but not quite

As pointed out on kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org], this isn't actually open. The copyright restrictions are still there, if you click on the copyright link [microsoft.com] at the bottom of the page you get a page that says (among other things):

NOTICE SPECIFIC TO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEBSITE. Permission to use Documents (such as white papers, press releases, datasheets and FAQs) from this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. Educational institutions ( specifically K-12, universities and state community colleges) may download and reproduce the Documents for distribution in the classroom. Distribution outside the classroom requires express written permission. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible

Documents specified above do not include the design or layout of the Microsoft.com website or any other Microsoft owned, operated, licensed or controlled site. Elements of Microsoft websites are protected by trade dress, trademark, unfair competition, and other laws and may not be copied or imitated in whole or in part. No logo, graphic, sound or image from any Microsoft website may be copied or retransmitted unless expressly permitted by Microsoft.

Looks pretty much like the previous release, just without the trade secret nonsense.

Microsoft disclosing development info

I think it's about time MSFT does something like this. I work at a computer company, and we do a lot of software development. Currently, we are developing for Windows CE, and I have to say, I was really ticked when I learned I couldn't just d/l the SDK... I actually had to **order** it off of the developer store (Now true, it was free, but I still had to pay $7 s/h and wait 3 weeks to get the darned thing). Although this is a bit late in coming, it is a welcome addition. It will really help in programming for Windows 2000 sekurity. Better late than never!
Agelmar

Re:Whoa, Microsoft supporting GNU tools?

Wow, MS is recommending interoperability with Solaris using GCC! Personally, I never thought I'd live to see this.

It's not too surprising once you realize the amount of people with *nix backgrounds that they hire. I have three friends who work there and they all either own a Linux box or have hacked Open Source projects at one time or the other.

The problem with MSFT isn't that they are evil or that they are out to screw Open Source but that they truly believe that the Microsoft Way will advance technology and bring the coolest technology to the masses. It is this belief in their rightness that makes them (at least at the developer level) dangerous to Open Source and third parties. After all, if you believe that without MSFT technology the world would be in the dark ages and your mom wouldn't even be able to use a computer without MSFT wizards and GUIs, then you'd begin to have a certain kind of tunnel vision which would border on delusional.
Basically what I'm trying to say is this, they don't go out of their way to not be interoperable, it simply is that interoperability never crosses their minds when creating software.

DON'T touch them!

You'll have to become Bill Gates's towel boy to use them!

re: "Last updated January 21, 2000,"

re:"Last updated January 21, 2000,"

There are two distinct possibilities. I will be generous and present them in order of highest benefit to M$:

• This was M$'s plan all along. The have a long history of doing something dorky at first, only later to do something that comes closer to being the right thing. This gives them the feeling of having done the right thing while giving us confirmation that M$ is run by dorks.
• M$ is still suffering from Y2K fallout and they are just now getting their systems to recognize Y2K dates (as of 3 weeks ago). Unfortunately, they have not had the opportunity to send the college interns around to reset all of the system clocks, a task that most of us handle by having our systems access a central clock.

Needs a disclaimer:

konstant works for Microsoft (and, when making pro-Microsoft posts in comments includes that fact in his .sig).

This is not a criticism, it's just something to keep in mind when you read his take on things - just as it is when any employee of a company publicly comments on something directly involving that company's business).