Imagine a government with access to a complex OS source code. Then imagine that they get data on all manner of security holes as they are discovered. Imagine also that this government has access to OS security update certifications. Finally, imagine that this same government has the ability to hack into server DNS tables to route targeted users to their alternative 'security updates'.

The penetration of any software company by undercover government operatives would hardly be surprising, but entirely unnecessary. Microsoft would hardly be alone as a target of such espionage -- every software company would be vulnerable, including OSS. There is also the issue with 'backdoors' hard-wired into computer hardware, including especially telecom systems. IIRC, this became an issue recently with news of backdoors alleged to exist in VLSI circuits manufactured in China. Older news alleged that Israel also puts backdoors into the telecom hardware they sell & ship, including to the USA government.

If virtually every government does such spying, including upon their own citizens, and any number of software & hardware companies do the same with their customers, any cautious user of such technology should be aware of the potential security breaches they expose themselves to every time they connect to the internet, or open their front door for that matter. Redundancy & breadth of security beats security through obscurity any day.

The phrases of the day are, "Trust no one", "Security in depth", and "If it can't be accessed remotely, it's more secure & less vulnerable". At that point, physical security & Tempest-hardening secure your valuable data. The rhetorical question is, "How valuable is your data if you cannot readily access it?" I found it humorous that the USA government recently wanted reporters to write their news stories on government-supplied computers, if only to avoid unwanted data leaks & stop potential whistleblowers in their tracks.

Trust the USA government, or any government, or any corporation with an agenda? Why take that risk unmitigated? And who in Hades would put vulnerable sensitive SCADA systems in close proximity to the Internet except an idiot?

Microstamping would make no difference these days. That factoid would fall under 'national security' considerations, especially if the facts refute the theory. It also presumes that there would be a trial. Today, we have the Unitary Executive, with extrajudicial 'remedies' that preclude charges being filed, or with a public trial, or even a crime actually having been committed. We are in the age of indefinite preventive detention, government incitement & entrapment, and (coming soon) armed domestic UAVs for 'law enforcement' -- death from above.

The FBI criminal laboratory for many years fraudulently claimed that they could tell which box a bullet came from, based upon their 'expert' testimony. As it turns out, modern manufacturing methods are far too uniform for such a claim to be scientifically valid.

Wasn't it that globalist criminal William Jefferson Clinton that proposed putting microscopic taggards in smokeless powder used for reloading ammunition? That same President that created the Ruby Ridge massacre, the Waco / Branch Davidian massacre, and the OKC Bombing. (Yes, the OKC bombing was an inside job, just like both attacks on the NYC Twin Towers (1993 & 2001). Advancing a police state through legislation requires events that encourage such legislation.

Your tag-line says it all -- that you are full of shite.

"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

You're full of shite.

Barely 2 months before the VPI shootings, the VA legislature was on the verge of making CCL (concealed carry licenses) valid for college campuses. The regents of VPI pressed the legislature to table changes to VA CCL laws. In another instance of liberal stupidity, the perpetrator of the VPI slayings was in and out of mental health treatment for many months before that tragic event. The liberals in charge of VPI Health Services did not want to disadvantage a student from future firearms ownership by registering this student with the Virginia State Police as being mentally unstable. If Cho had been registered thus, the Instant Background Check would have flagged him as legally unable to purchase a firearm. Liberalism, especially liberalism that strips citizens of their rights, was at the core of the VPI shootings and directly attributable to that crime.

BTW, CCL holders go through a similar vetting process that the private VPI security go through. I would trust a CCL-holder before I would trust a Law Enforcement Officer -- demographically, there is a far larger portion of LEOs that commit crimes than CCL-holders.

FWIW, when I went to VPI back in the early 1970's students were allowed to bring their legally owned firearms on campus, to be stored with their Resident Advisors. There is some great white-tail deer and black bear hunting in the rural areas around VPI. VPI used to have a fairly competent target shooting team, as well as ROTC.

Liberal gun-grabbers are nothing more than prostitutes working for the bankster criminal class, making the entire world safe for their criminal enterprises. It has been said that liberals are merely conservatives who have not yet been the victims of one criminal class or another, including especially the banksters.

You aren't trolling for someone of the criminal class who might be armed, in order to deal with a nasty ex-wife and her boyfriend divorce lawyer, are you? Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

LOLZ

The only people in NYC who are allowed to protect themselves with firearms are that criminal class who steal from the common man. They're called banksters, lawyers, politicians, etcetera -- who belong in prison or under the prison.

You're the asshole, Asshole Coward. I bet you are either one of that criminal class yourself, or else work as security for that criminal class, like the NYPD. When the banksters are done raping & pillaging We The People, you will be next on their list of prospective victims. Watch out for your pension, AC, since it is "low-hanging fruit" to be stolen as well.
Anyway, with enough torches & pitchforks, who needs a firearm to herd that criminal class into line for introductions to Madame Guillotine?

George Carlin (R.I.P.) had a special expression for the Congress-critters, the banksters (rhymes with gangsters), and others that rob We The People with legislation and a fountain pen. He stated that these people are tough on street crime, in order to make Wall Street criminals feel safer. I haven't seen anything that refutes that claim.

Exactly so.
Just because Raytheon is likely using an off-the-shelf Linux release as the platform for their Ground Control Software, that doesn't specify which shelf it came off of. IIRC, 'Red Dragon' is the vetted official People's Republic of China release of Linux.
That makes the jobs of the repo (re-possession) men contracted to the PRC to help settle the USA's massive sovereign & trade debts that much easier. (And don't think That Isn't Coming. If so, you're in denial.)

OTOH, I am familiar with another Defense Contractor's Ground Control Software of 10 years ago, and they were using a heavily customized version of Linux for a portion of their project (Java coding & Oracle Back-end). That didn't make their Ground Control Software any safer -- exactly the opposite considering how both the kernel & core system software have been repeatedly patched by the open source community. (Contractor-wise, can anyone say "Job Security"?)

Considering the nature of the UAVs they will be controlling, perhaps the better choice for that OS would be OpenBSD, widely advertised as only having had "2 remote holes since forever". Of course, that would represent a new challenge with a big "pay-off" for hackers everywhere.

UEFI and HW-based DRM are elements of the national security surveillance police state control grid. If you want to access the internet, your HW & SW must conform to these new standards. There won't be any choice.

In the not-so-distant future your vehicle will be driving you, on a number of highways -- Smart Roads.

You'll just be a passenger in either case. As will we all.

And you don't think that UEFI-based HW-level DRM enabled, for both the booted OS AND every application that accesses the internet will not become a requirement at some point in the not-too-distant future? Requirements for unique user ID for access to the internet are already being seriously discussed by the PTB. UEFI is the camel's nose under the tent flap scenario. Internet access is the chain, and DRM is the ball. We will all be prisoners in a full spectrum national security surveillance police state.

But by all means, be the early adopters of a technology that will soon be both obsolete and illegal. UEFI and DRM will soon enough be the law of the land, or at least another decision of the Unitary Executive. You must learn not only to obey, but also to love Big Brother. Anything else would be construed as a Thought Crime, and the next thing you know, you're in Room 101 in one of FEMA "re-education" camps. You will awaken, at some point.

That's hilarious.
UEFI is all about who has control over your computer, the corporate government or the user.
Big Brother says that you can only load an OS that has paid the Gatekeeper's fee. Applications will be next, so a uniform level of security would be involved in engaging in any internet commerce or correspondence, not for the user's sake but for the "security of the internet". Central to that would be the authenticated unique identity of any user connected to the internet. And when will your ISP inform you that you can no longer run an application or a game on your machine which accesses the internet without having your computer's UEFI Boot Monitor enabled, the unique internet user ID generated & broadcasting, and every application having official UEFI DRM certificates?
This is not a stretch of the imagination. This is the direction that personal computers, and particularly the clamp-down of internet freedom has been headed for 15 years. Remember the Clipper Chip agenda? DRM restrictions go quite a bit further in invasion of privacy than Clipper ever threatened, not just privacy but also ability to run any SW without an authorized certificate authority.

The Apple laptop I bought 10 years had EFI, and it was possible for me to halt the boot sequence, then have it boot-strap into a Forth application which ran like a demon without the OS overhead. Apple shipped those with no EFI boot ROM password, but the user could set up a root password which avoided a lot of potential problems. UEFI is either enabled or disabled, but if it is enabled, the Gatekeeper for the Boot ROM AUTH Key is Microsoft, and Red Hat acknowledges that the User must pay (est. $99) for each machine OS "upgrade".

How many alternative OS Vendors will be locked out of that market by UEFI's steep per user machine fee? What happens to alternative SW Vendors -- will they be able to survive when their customers would be forced to pay to get a per machine fee? The UEFI is the spawn of Satan himself -- the Mark of The Beast -- Everyone gets a universal internet ID number with UEFI. You just have to love it when monopoly-minded crony corporate interests run the regulatory and enforcement arms of government No harm to the special interests, so there was no foul. "Keep moving, people. Nothing to see here." Like a Jedi mind-trick, "The kleptocratic monopolies of which you seek are not here". LOLZ

UEFI is an OEM Software Vendor's bald-faced grab at monopoly power. Microsoft would be the key generator. Redhat would pay Microsoft a one-time fee per user machine, which RH figures likely to be a one-time $99 fee. This charge would be per machine, not per user, as it is likely that no 2 computers on the same network can have the same key. How many linux users not running servers would be willing to pay their OEM Linux Software Vendor an extra $100 over the current cost of that software per machine? What impact would this have on the number of desktop linux users? How many would forego any switch from the Microsoft OS pre-installed for an extra additional $100, per machine?

IIRC, when Microsoft first began trying to compete with Server Software against the the Big Iron Server Vendors, flexibility in number of connected clients, and owning the HW and the SW license was considerably cheaper than an annual HW & SW service agreement. Digital Equipment, Silicon Graphics, and Sun Microsystems are gone, Microsoft has so much influence over HW manufacturers that an effort was made to rein in competition. Control of the UEFI Boot AUTH Key by a self-avowed SW monopoly would appear to, in one fell swoop, destroy a segment of the Desktop OS competition AND create a robust new revenue stream at the same time. The crony corporatists are greedy vampires, as one named John D. was quoted as saying "Competition is a sin."

So, which recently topping $1 Billion in revenues OEM SW Vendor just climb into bed, figuratively speaking, with Microsoft? Red Hat? Gee whiz, I wonder how many of Red Hat's plethora of desktop linux competition, or for that matter, any *nix-like OS Vendor would care for their product to be automatically boosted in price by $100 (minimum) to establish an UEFI Boot AUTH Key "Associate" account with Microsoft? When is More Evil just too much?

Free market capitalism, by definition, should be operating on a level playing field of regulation and enforcement. The greater and greater concentration of economic power and influence in the hands of fewer and fewer corporations is hardly an indication of a vibrant free market. But that is a symptom of corporatism, and when government is in alliance with those crony corporate interests instead of the general well-being of all taxpayers, it is called corporate socialism also sometimes known as national socialism or fascism.