MS Cites National Security to Justify Closed Source 827
guacamolefoo writes: "It was recently reported in eWeek that "A senior Microsoft Corp. executive told a federal court last week that sharing information with competitors could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed."
(Emphasis added.) The follow up from Microsoft is even better: As a result of the flaws, Microsoft has asked the court to allow a "national security" carve-out from the requirement that any code or API's be made public. Microsoft has therefore taken the position that their code is so bad that it must kept secret to keep people from being killed by it. Windows - the Pinto of the 21st century."
Open source and security - some references (Score:4, Informative)
It's already been revealed that some attacker got into Microsoft's network. Also, CD's with Microsoft's source have been released for various reasons over time. I have no trouble believing that some "bad guys" already have the source code. So, how do the rest of us protect ourselves from these bad guys with the source code? And from the bad guys to come who don't have it yet... but will?
As noted in Secure Programming for Linux and Unix HOWTO [dwheeler.com], section 2.4.2 [dwheeler.com], closing off source code doesn't actually halt attacks anyway. Here's the quote:
Microsoft source code is already available... (Score:5, Informative)
Austria already has it. [microsoft.com]
Any U.S. University can apply for it now if they don't already have it. [microsoft.com]
Many of Microsoft's larger customers have it [com.com]
I don't see why it would be difficult for any terrorist organization to get it. How can they legitimately argue that it may possible be keep it secret at this point? If it's a national security risk to make the code available, the damage can no longer be avoided.
Ryan Fenton
Unfair to Pintos (Score:2, Informative)
The 2 liter overhead cam motor in the Pinto is surprisingly good. When I raced a friends Capri with that motor, he said that he usually shifts between 7,000 and 8,000 RPM because it doesn't make any more power beyond that, but the motor will spin over 9,000 RPM without problems.
I've also seen Pintos win the SCCA racing class Improved Touring B, against cars like BMW 2002s.
Re:Don't pick on me! My software sucks! (Score:2, Informative)
USS Yorktown dead in water after divide by zero [ncl.ac.uk]
You're looking at it from the wrong side (Score:3, Informative)
Umm.. I don't think the issue is so much with poor documentation where documentation exists, I think the issue is more with non-existing documentation.
If you are looking at the whole system from the point of documentation, of course everything looks great? That's like looking at the world though a great big filter.
Instead you will have to go the other way; check all DLL/EXEs for exports, and then see if those exports are documented. Some exports aren't even done by name, but only by ordinal [gazonk.org], making them even harder to use.
I'm not a win32 guy either, so I can't give any concrete examples off hand, but I'm pretty sure this is partly where the issues lie.
You really cannot say the APIs are highly documented unless you have disassembled the code to see what it can really do, can you? Sure, there might be a hundred documented functions, but that is only impressive if there are only a hundred exports, and those exports are limited to the paramaters defined by the documentation.
How does this explain past viruses? (Score:2, Informative)
Melissa? A combination of knowing about a way too scriptable mail client, knowing that most folks don't have extensions showing (another great MSism, don't show people what they get from unknown, untrusted folks in the mail), even though most would probably click on a
MS Word & Excel virii? Way too scriptable applications. Also from a VB book. No source needed to write the virus.
Besides, the errors need to be fixed. Secuurity through obscurity hasn't really worked so far.
Re:Hypocrits (Score:3, Informative)
The statement is, and always has been "we fix what we know about, if it wont break too much other stuff".
Incidentally, within some egregious time window (10 years ?) they fix it for free.
Thats the tradeoff the government willfully made when it wanted to use an off the shelf operating system, instead of doing it in house or submitting bids for a custom contract. (software that requires an ongoing support contract for security issues or _any_ issue at all)
What you're asking for would be something like an A1 system under the old pre-Common Criteria scheme... i.e. a provably correct system.
Guess how many products received A1 certs. Theres a list of some of them. It wouldn't take a long time to load the html. Even at 300bps.
Behaviors aren't consistent, etc... (Score:3, Informative)
The API's declaration is consistent, but what one version of Windows DOES with the parameters may differ slightly or radically from another, supposedly identical one.
Re:They must be getting desperate... (Score:3, Informative)
They don't do that anymore because people have reverse engineered enough of Windows and the MS apps that run on it to demonstrate conclusively that you've been fed a big fat lie. You don't have a level playing field and you never did.
This is a multi-billion dollar fraud and in large part it's what made Microsoft the uber-monopoly it is today (this was the grounds that the DoJ should have used to go after MS). The fact that you don't know that you've been shafted years after BillG and SteveB have admitted this in interviews leaves me speechless.
Kerckhoffs' Principle (Score:3, Informative)
To quote Schneier: "Any system that tries to keep its algorithms secret for security reasons is quickly dismissed by the [cryptographic] community, and referred to as "snake oil" or even worse."
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram.html
Re:Wrong! Power is in words, not wars! (Score:2, Informative)