Honestly, security experts don't pick on Microsoft because we have some fundamental dislike for the company. Indeed, Microsoft's poor products are one of the reasons we're in business. We pick on them because they've done more to harm Internet security than anyone else, because they repeatedly lie to the public about their products' security, and because they do everything they can to convince people that the problems lie anywhere but inside Microsoft. Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. Until that changes, expect more of this kind of nonsense from Microsoft and its products. (Note to Gartner: The vulnerabilities will come, a couple of them a week, for years and years
... until people stop looking for them. Waiting six months isn't going to make this OS safer.)
Given the effect the decision by IBM to cut access to the source has on the market, which effectively considers RH clones as public infrastructure, why hasn't the USA Federal Trade Commission stepped in, especially given the lock in through the OEM agreements with Microsoft & RH?
For example as with the Telecom industry attempt to move away from the Network Neutrality model in 2006.
https://itheresies.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2006/08/ftc-chairman-addresses-issue-net-neutrality
When you consider how many business, organisations, governmental services & just people use services hosted on CENTOS clones.
The main problem is that OEMs test & even validate server/workstation/desktop/laptop hardware for both Microsoft & RedHat OSs on the OEM provided hardware, under agreements which MAY have caveats that effect competition.
Currently you can get around this by when you purchase, lease or collocate OEM hardware originally purchased with the NO-Operating-System option or more likely second hand, but if the hardware has been tested with Red Hat Enterprise Linux it should work as expected under CENTOS clones.
It opens the market to other providers as does Telecom Network Neutrality. IBM's decision to limit source access under any licence limiting redistribution significantly changes the market and should be investigated by the FTC and other competition monitoring agencies in the EU & worldwide.
[12] Governments, organisations and individuals are becoming increasingly concerned about software compatibility, conflicts and the possible existence of spyware in the software applications they use. If you have access to the source code, then you can check it and compile it for yourself. This is not an option for closed source proprietary applications, and not everyone has the resources to check each line of source code. One solution for these issues is to employ a trusted third party, separate from the application developer, who is tasked with maintaining a trusted build environment, to build the binaries from source code. The Trusted Build Agent (TBA) would hold the source to each build in escrow, releasing the source code for only open source licensed code. Competing businesses providing a TBA service in a free market would compete with each other in not only price and level of certification, but also on the ability to detect hostile, vulnerable, incompatible or just plain buggy source code. You could request a trusted build from multiple TBAs test the ability to detect defects. Defects would be reported back to the application developers, along with any patches and suggestions that provide a fix. To a lesser extent, most Linux distributions and other operating system vendors that build and redistribute open source licensed code already provide this role.
In a recent speech "Fixing Network Security by Hacking the Business Climate", also now on Technetcast, Bruce Schneier claimed that for change to occur the software industry must become libel for damages from "unsecure" software. However, historically this has not always been the case, since most businesses can insure against damages and pass the cost along to the consumer.
The Ford Pinto and more recently the Ford Explorer's tires are two examples of public and media pressure being more successful than just threat of lawsuits. Even so, just as with the automotive industry, eventually though public pressure the governments around the world have to step in and pass regulations that set up a minimum set of requirements an automobile has to meet to be deemed "road worthy". This includes crash testing as well as the inclusion of safety equipment on all models. The requirement are not constant and change to meet the expectations and demands of the public and lawmakers.
The onus is not only on the automotive industry itself but also on the users. Most countries require that all automobiles undergo regular inspection and maintain an up to date "Warrant of Fitness".
In the same way, if you want a secure IT infrastructure, eventually the software design, implementation and each deployment will have to undergo the same type of regulation and scrutiny.
Der Spiegel reports from sources that Telegram has fulfilled a number of data requests from Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office involving terror and child abuse suspects.
I'm over forty years old. I have lived though, vividly remember and fully comprehend the late 1970s oil crisis, New Zealand's own 1984 balance of payments crisis and the 1987 share market crash. My Father was born a year after the 1926 stock market crash and is well acquainted with the effects of the resulting depression. I have repeatedly seen fools and so called wise men throw their fortunes on various markets and schemes based upon expected high return on investment. Eventually and inevitably the pyramid schemes -- for in the end that's all the revolving investment schemes are -- collapse.
All the digital platforms, be it Google's Android play store, Apple's mac/ios app store, Microsoft's Windows and Xbox store, Sony's Playstation store, etc, should be forced to switch from a store to an open mall model, with the platform provider hosting it own stores upon the mall in competition with anyone else being able to set up a store on the same platform.
With the exception of the platform providers own store and own apps, platform providers do do not get revenue direct from app creators/software vendors, but from rent from stores in the mall.
As mall owner the platform provider can set requirements for app behaviour, but it must be the same for all stores even the platform provider's own store. Platform providers and stores must not do exclusive deals that restrict stores from selling any particulate vendor's software, or setting prices.
Platform providers get rent from store owners. Stores in the mall, including the platform provider's store, enter a dutch auction every quarter to decide their rank and position in the platform mall list of store. Top stores get bigger banners etc.
Yes it means that the Platform provider's store is probably always going to be top and most prominent of the Mall list & metaverse.
All the digital platforms, be it Google's Android play store, Apple's mac/ios app store, Microsoft's Windows and Xbox store, Sony's Playstation store, etc, should be forced to switch from a store to an open mall model, with the platform provider hosting it own stores upon the mall in competition with anyone else being able to set up a store on the same platform.
With the exception of the platform providers own store and own apps, platform providers do do not get revenue direct from app creators/software vendors, but from rent from stores in the mall.
As mall owner the platform provider can set requirements for app behaviour, but it must be the same for all stores even the platform provider's own store. Platform providers and stores must not do exclusive deals that restrict stores from selling any particulate vendor's software, or setting prices.
Platform providers get rent from store owners. Stores in the mall, including the platform provider's store, enter a dutch auction every quarter to decide their rank and position in the platform mall list of store. Top stores get bigger banners etc.
Yes it means that the Platform provider's store is probably always going to be top and most prominent of the Mall list & metaverse.
A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle
