Microsoft Apologist Apologizes for Microsoft 446
hillbilly1980 writes "Internet Week has published a counter article in response to the number of anti-monoculture security papers recently published. Unfortunately the author starts out by writing off the other papers as simply anti-Microsoft, unfortunate because his paper never gets past being more then just pro-Microsoft. One of his suggestions to secure your enterprise... turn off port 80." Probably the best thing to do to prevent disinformation from entering your company is to block articles by Rob Enderle. Update: 10/11 00:54 GMT by M : Note for the record that the original version of the article referred to blocking port 80; the article has now been edited to refer to port 135.
Bah! (Score:5, Funny)
That's nothing. To be *really* secure I just don't even turn my computer on!
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
Real Security (Score:2, Funny)
Funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Funny (Score:2, Funny)
Oh! We're talking about Windows. Maybe learning assembler is easier...
Of course (Score:2, Funny)
Great idea. Let me make sure everything is off in my lab. Let me also ask management of my institute to file for bankruptcy while I am at it. I am sure they will thank me for making our network absolutely safe.
Re:Funny (Score:2)
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny (Score:2)
Re:Funny (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, it is completely understandable and ok that slashdot is not a pro-microsoft-newsletter. But still I would have expected a bit more. Not just "oh, and if Rob Enderle is from Microsoft everythingh he says is bad".
Re:Slashdot (Score:2)
I can show you countless slashdot-sponsored studies which support this with hard statistical data.
Re:Slashdot (Score:2)
Just use Google and select all his articles and postings. After viewing a few randomly chosen ones you understand why Enderle has earned the title "Microsoft Sock Puppet".
He only adds to his reputation by making 'suggestions' for improving WinXX security.
Re:Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood [internetweek.com]
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry [internetweek.com]
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise [internetweek.com]
Those are all "Opinion" columns, btw.
Re:Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy is an amazing tool. My favorite line so far? He claims that open source puts you at more risk for litagation. But doesn't proprietary software have the same risk? No, and here's his claim why:
So apparently it's all okay, because you're less likely to get caught.
Re:Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a little bit more (at the end of the current article):
PREVIOUSLY BY ROB ENDERLE:
- Microsoft: Hated Because It's Misunderstood [internetweek.com]
- Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry [internetweek.com]
- Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise [internetweek.com]
Further, in the article, after presenting a general statement (that he tries to critique) that diversity is good for security, he claims:
These arguments were put forward by Gartner and, separately, a panel hosted by the anti-Microsoft Computer & Communications Industry Association.
But there is no evidence that either party has actually analyzed the cost of diversity or quantified the risks of diversity.
As opposed to who? Himself? He presents no cost or risk analysis of anything either, including diversity, or any of the arguments that he is trying to put forward. But based on his previous articles and general sentiment, it is obvious that he doesn't need to. It's clear what his conclusion is going to be anyway.
Re:Slashdot (Score:2)
I come here because I have tried most of the alternatives t
where the hell is this guy posting at? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that any business should think through the liabilities of any piece of software that the are going to deploy, (like maybe think for a second about distributing copies of Windows throughout your buisness, an OS that includes a piece of software that was found to be illegally infringing on a legal patent, unlike the SCO case which is merely in progress, much like all the lawsuits against MS), but what the hell does "Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents", have to do with a consultant's article on the weaknesses of Linux? Should I write an article about "Why Windows sucks on the Desktop", and then state "Besides, many Windows users are nothing more than software pirates and they download the vast majority of illegal mp3s".
Here's a good one from the article "Reasons to Shun Open-Source-ry" -
If you actually read this guy's articles you start to get a pretty good idea of the amount of FUD that he is spreading. Check out his consulting group, do some googling, and check out his bio - GigaWeb [gigaweb.com]. This guy is a marketroid consultant who seemingly only works with and promotes MS products, (according to his own information!). His arguments are also generally full of holes and he often uses ad hominem attacks while bashing anti-MSers for doing the same thing. The only platforms that seem to draw his ire are non-MS, check out all he has to say on OSX and Linux, (If you can stand it). He even asks if OSS supporters have "ever heard of capitalism?", and says that he does not want to go back to the days of cheap software. I've read about a dozen of his articles now, (know thy enemy), and I suggest that anyone who has some questions on this guy do the same.
Re:Slashdot (Score:2)
BTW, Enderle isn't from Microsoft.
Turnabout is Fair Play. (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot has never claimed any kind of objective viewpoint. Its rather biased. And its become well-known, if not always popular, because of that bias.
Slashdot filled an interesting niche; a dissenting opinion when the IT press was almost entirely Windows-centric. Linux was quietly seeping in to the Enterprise. But the mainstream IT press either ignored it or was unfairly dismissive. Slashdot was a forum most note
Turning off port 80. (Score:3, Funny)
Hamlet without the prince (Score:2)
"Hamlet without the prince"
Used allusively to refer to a performance or event taking place without the central figure, actor, etc. E19. Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary Copyright (C) 1998
Re:Hamlet without the prince (Score:2)
FYI, there is a an official Slashdot phrase for this:
Darl McBride without the unctuousness"
Used allusively to refer to an oozing bag of shit, without the shit or the ooze.
(C), (TM), (IP), (AYB) 1983-2003 SCO Group
port 135, not port 80 (Score:4, Informative)
~Phillip
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell is this port even open in the first place? And unclosable at that?
I'm about as geeky as they get, and I've never used any RPC-based apps outside of an academic environment. I'm pretty sure the 3 home users in the planet who actually use it can figure out a way around it.
Ah, good old Microsoft. "It's not our fault people write exploits for needlessly internet-facing services."
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
~Phillip
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
sPh
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
IMO, it's better to block everything anyway, then open up ports as needed.
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:3, Insightful)
In the short term, you block the latest worm. In the long term, you just forced everyone to use an alternative protocol tunneled through an accessible port. Why? Because the internet is successful because almost any computer can send almost any computer almost any digital message in an efficient way. If you feel like complaining about the dumb users on the network, think about the alternative: what if we all grew up where all we had
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with RPC-based services - in the right environment they're absolutely vital.
However opening them up to the internet at large is suicidal. Even the *NIX RPC implimentations have been dodgy at best and although Samba is pretty secure, I still would bever be seen dead opening it up to the internet. Luckily most *NIX distributions agree with this train of thought, but MS? Do they get a sizable
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
It kind of takes some of the shock value out of the Slashdot story. It's a good idea to block outisde communication over port 135. Inside your network is another story...
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:2)
Re:port 135, not port 80 (Score:4, Insightful)
Restrict 135 - Yeah Baby!
Except the major worm infestations haven't used the Internet as the primary exploit vector when demolishing the infrastructure at medium and large enterprises. Blaster and Slammer were "carted in" via laptops, poorly configured VPNs, permissive network sharing with business partners and improperly segmented test/development networks. Slammer just took a major grocery-chain's national WAN down for more than a day. This, 8.5 MONTHS after protecting the edge, and main production boxes for the exploit and blocking SQL discovery.
There are tag vulnerabilities in the wild, outside the scope of the latest MS patch, 7 days ago. These are capable of planting trojans -- bypassing AV message filters in HTML-formatted mails with Outlook clients, and can be set in invisible-frames, etc.
Enderle thinks that because he ran through pro-forma auditing that he has the expertise to second guess Schnierer and Geer? Gimme a break! I take Marc Ranum's criticism of these guy's work - not some paid-for-troll who scoffs at the bulk of the working code deployed over the past 40 years as "Open Source-ery".
Enderle should get his facts right first (Score:5, Informative)
The point (Score:2)
Re:Enderle should get his facts right first (Score:2)
Gee. I didn't realize pen-testing referred to breaking into p
Re:Enderle should get his facts right first (Score:2)
Diversity is money! (Score:2)
What a great suggestion.. let get rid of all of those different flavors of windows and all those pesky multivendor PCs. A corporate wide upgrade to all new high end laptops for everyone including your servers will save *huge* amounts of money!
He seems to be suggesting (Score:3, Funny)
Or am I just reading that wrong?
KFG
Yeah, Of Course He's Right (Score:5, Insightful)
The monoculture risk is real when you're looking at the 64,000 view -- the entire population. They're not really all that much of a risk when you're dealing with, say, an enterprise's systems, and there's not that much benefit to them in that kind of environment (disregarding things like security devices for the moment).
We've used the agriculture analogy before to describe the issues around monocultures, so to continue to use it, we can say that his point is that monoculture isn't really an issue because when you're tilling a single field, it's a pain in the ass to put multiple crops on it. True, but that's not the point -- it's when you've got one crop on *ALL* the fields (all the enterprises) or at least a substantial portion of them that you get into a problem.
Re:Yeah, Of Course He's Right (Score:2)
On the contrary, the monoculture risk should affect an enterprise decision whether to participate in that monoculture. When making such decisions, people shouldn't take into account the
Message to the Submitters/Editors (Score:3, Insightful)
Authors routinely get bashed by the extremists (Score:2)
Re:Message to the Submitters/Editors (Score:2)
The article said port 80 when originally posted, it was altered after that to port 135.
The author also claims msblaster was an email virus.
ok port 80 and some others (Score:2)
What nonsense
His suggestions.. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Accelerated adoption of patches.
Ok, yes you do have to stay patched. But this is like blaming people with flawed cars for not going to the car dealer each week to check for recalls. Microsoft's abundance of patches indicates poor design and methodology, period.
- Locking down desktops so users cannot make changes and viruses and worms can't install themselves and run.
Ok, so rather than design the apps safely out of the box, we need to handcuff the users and do the dirty work ourselves. I guess all those Outlook viruses were our fault.
- Restricting ports, such as port 135, which effectively stopped the latest virus attack.
Wow! What a concept! I never thought of this! Now I know where all my problems are coming from! It's not from the software, it's my fault for actually allowing connectivity!
- maintaining "hot sites," or duplicates of key elements of the IT infrastructure, so if the main infrastructure is compromised, users can quickly switch to backup systems.
Sounds like a way to sell licenses. Ok, since we can't make our product stable, buy 2 copies and hope one works.
- Developing the capability to rapidly restore compromised software and data from backups.
Right. Key word is, develop. Why does an end user, paying hundreds of dollars per seat need to 'develop' something as common as this.
- Adding security staff or outsourced services.
Right. Keep sending us your licensing fees, and then spend more money to make up for the gaps in our software. Don't trust any of that 'free software' crap you read on the internet - those Linux guys are a bunch of hacks. Hire an MSCE. Preferably from another country.
Re:His suggestions.. (Score:2)
Actually, that would be "bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents [internetweek.com]." Get your facts straight, please.
Re:His suggestions.. (Score:2)
Zero of which were in the operating system which is part of the red hat distribution. 43 patches in literally HUNDREDS of programs that are included with redhat linux 9. Windows has, lets see, the OS (of which they assure us the browser is part), 1 email app, 1 media player. oh yeah, and notepad (I'll give, I think notepad is a shining proof of concept that microsoft can write a secure and stable app
Other prediction (Score:2)
Re:Other prediction (Score:2)
It also includes, "while Linux plays a siren song of independence from Microsoft...companies increasingly view Linux as a better alternative platform." Sounds far less anti-Linux than after his professed conversion (brought about by some doubtlessly unprofessional letters from many who also certainly are not fit representatives of enterprise Linux).
Some other nice quotes: "AMD is ... likely to either merge or more closely partner with Transmeta by the end of 2003 to create
a more compelling a
The author is right! But... (Score:2)
But anyone who is going to make a business decision regarding security can and will recognize that cost is a factor. Just because not all papers focus on cost doesn't mean that their conclusions are flawed.
The author fails to present any facts that support his implied position that the costs of securing the Microsoft model is a lower cost.
The author has written an article about his opinions. He provi
What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Back in 97, I was working at a startup where we were using the usual array of Microsoft tools to create web-based applications: IIS, ASP, Visual Basic (COM controls), and SQL server. The more I learned, the more I grew not to like it. The straw to break the camel's back was finding a significant bug in MDAC (which was acknowledged by a high-level tech once the ticket was escalated), and then having to wait 6 months for a fix. We thus moved away from the MS platform to Java/Linux, a combination that we found to be superior for our needs. I haven't looked back since.
I think I thus fall into the anti-Microsoft camp. I'd prefer to think of myself as being in the "pro-well-written-software" camp though. If Microsoft started writing good, secure, and interoperable software, I'd welcome them with open arms. My problem with MS is that in my "learned-the-hard-way" opinion, they don't.
The author does not define the term "anti-Microsoft". So my question is, what connotation do people try and draw up with the term "anti-Microsoft"? In my opinion, fabricated terms that begin with "anti-" tend to be used to describe an irrational hatred of something, and that's what I'm seeing here.
Re:What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean? (Score:2)
Compared to whom?
For example, compare Metrowerks Codewarrior to MS Visual Studio.
Using Visual Studio is a pain in the ass.
Using Metrowerks Codewarrior is like going into a gladiatorial arena, butt naked, bare fisted, and going up against a
Re:What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean? (Score:2)
On the other hand, though, Visual Studio is the only Microsoft product I've ever been able to say was decent. Its companion, Visual SourceSafe is quite possibly the worst version control system I've ever seen. I think a source tree spread across multiple floppy disks would be more secure than having your code in a SourceSafe database.
Just how much of a joke it is, even within Microsoft
Up to their old tricks. (Score:2)
I see they're up to their old tricks.
Back in the REALLY early days (MS-DOS on Pe
Re:Up to their old tricks. (Score:2)
Balderdash. Microsoft has been one of the most hated software companies ever since their inception as a pissant little outfit making interpreters for hobbiest computers.
Why? Because of the way they behave.
Nowadays I think the situation is turned around, the only reason some people seem to like them is because they are big.
Too big to ignore.
I can't think of any other reason to put up with the sort of treatment they give their
Re:What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean? (Score:2)
Perceptive. Dismiss an entire movement with a swipe of the pen, regardless of how well-reasoned the objections may be.
What really opened my eyes to the possibilities of free software was emailing a bug report t
Re:What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're claiming that Microsoft has a record of not writing good software based upon a bug you found in a 1.0 version of a product?
Fascinating. BTW, while we're at it... How many bugs have you found in your Java environment? How many times did you have to upgrade to fix them? Where was Java in 1997 and where is it today?
"In my opinion, fabricated terms that begin with "anti-" tend to be used to describe an irrational hatred of something, and that's what I'm seeing here."
Don't you have an irrational hatred of something?
Re:What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean? (Score:2)
The straw for me was when I called Microsoft because SQL server was crashing, spending the ONE ENTIRE DAY on the phone with their support, to finally learn that it was a bug in their product.
Solution? Upgrade your server.
No, not "admittedly, it's a bug, we'll fix it," but "give us more money to get the latest version, with its own bugs, and oh, by the way, enjoy the migration
Re:What exactly does "anti-Microsoft" mean? (Score:2)
I'd say those that lean towards Free Software are moral enough and man/woman enough to stand for their morals, at the cost of risking their acceptance to the job (On the other hand, why work for an immoral company?)
Assuming that using the best technology for any given task is the best and most "savvy" option is arrogant.
In my oppinion, one should lean towards software that promotes Freedom and should avoid as much as possible Closed software.
To exaggerate in orde
block articles by Rob? (Score:2)
Given the recent FUD from "our own Roblimo", I think it might be good to block articles from anyone named Rob if you're looking fro honest information.
Vote with your dollars (Score:2)
If the benefits outweight the risks for you, then buy their software.
If not, don't.
I don't see why it's considered so interesting whenever some "expert" comments on the security of Microsoft software.
Re:Vote with your dollars (Score:2)
I tried that for years. (Score:2)
I tried that for years. But the hardware manufacturers wouldn't sell me a machine without their software on it - paid for out of the retail price of the machine. B-(
Re:I tried that for years. (Score:2)
I don't see the point in paying for Windows or Office if I'm just going to wipe them anyway.
Re:I tried that for years. (Score:2)
Re:Vote with your dollars (Score:2)
Re:Vote with your dollars (Score:2)
Do you honestly think that if a particular brand of automobile actually caused more accidents, that people wouldn't avoid it on their own, if for no other reason than the fact that insurance premiums would be outlandish?
If you own an ISP with colocation services and frequent Windows worms cause your bandwidth to get swamped now and then, raise the price on Windows hosting to cover your bandwidth costs...
Re:Vote with your dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever hear of something called an "SUV"?
A reply to him... (Score:2)
Hi there,
I just read your article at internetweek (Opinion: Reasons To Shun Open Source-ry) and I must that although I don't agree with your opinions I think you have some backbone to say them in public
Of particular amusement was this part:
"He is contemplating building an open source-free saferoom in his solar-powered home."
I only hope that you weren't planning on installing Windows on any of those machines as the Windows TCP stack and Microsoft SFU are (Free|Open)BSD derived
Just another doofus, move along... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just another doofus, move along... (Score:2)
key ring example (Score:2)
Also the first port listed would be more accurate. IIS has always been the biggest flaw in their operating system. IIS6 will be exploited by the end of the year (my prediction.. w
Did I missread something (Score:2)
Not only this, but he contradicts himself when he talks about saving money with a single platform in one sentence but then talks about buying more AV products in another.
Mr. Enderle, what was your point again and can I
typical (Score:2)
No, no, no: turn them *all* off, and *open* them as needed. Jeez. They just... don't... get it. And then they come back later and say "windows and unix are equally secure, windows just gets attacked because it has more market share." They just do not understand basic security concepts.
He's right... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with anything he advocated in this article. Getting supporting evidence and adding diversity to a proper BC/DR plan is 100% correct.
What he fails to acknowledge is that Microsoft has, for its entire history, made security an afterthought that always lost to convenience.
Windows 95, 98 & Me were designed as *consumer* OSes, not corporate clients. Consumer OSes had no need for all those network services and ports being open by default. These systems were designed for home users, not businesses. WinNT, 2000 and XP Pro are different animals and are designed to be used in LANs where many of those services are going to be needed.
The DUN 1.4 update should have patched those Win95/98 systems to lock down almost every incoming port short of DHCP, NTP and DNS returns.
While MS has made noise recently about an emphasis on security, their actions speak louder than words. WinXP, while more stable than Win98/Me, seems to be just as vulnerable to security problems as other versions of their OS.
Even though Win95 and Win98 are no longer officially supported, MS needs to release one last patch that locks many of those ports down.
Unfortunately, no patch in the world will stop clueless users from clicking attachments without looking.
Looks like Enderle's Counterpoint 'Product' (Score:2)
Provides consulting services during the review process of a poorly founded negative piece on a vendor or its products and, should it be needed, showcases the research errors, statistical mistakes, and unfounded conclusions that often define such a piece.
typo in the article (Score:2)
Where he said "computer users" I think he meant to say "Windows users." Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, hell, pretty much ever OS besides Windows has this pretty much sewn up. Not perfect, but on a security scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is "r00ted in 30 seconds" and 10 is "powered off", Windows is about a 2 and *nix is about a 9.8.
another typo (Score:2)
I think he meant "Windows worms," not "Internet worms," since his example, Blaster, is in the first category. My Mac OS X firewall can be on, off, or sugar coated, I *ain't* gonna get fucking Blaster on it.
slashdot proves once again it's not credible. (Score:2)
Re:slashdot proves once again it's not credible. (Score:2)
I don't know about anyone else, but I know I would. I think networks should include both OS's, Linux and Mac OSX. I'd say BSD, too, but I heard it's dying...
Sponsored FUD? (Score:2)
feedback@internetweek.com (Score:2)
Please stop publishing stories by Rob Enderle as it is hurting your reputation and "technology street cred". His stories are filled with obvious bias and fanboyism. Even though his error packed rants may generate a lot of page hits, I guarantee that they are not generating any sort of revenue. It probably would not be very hard to look into it for sure and find out I'm right. If you do your own investigation, you'll find out that the "Enderle Group" is made up of one person: Rob En
Ask any Microsoft employee or contractor... (Score:2)
Weigh that into your decision as to whether or not the Microsoft monoculture can prevent hacks.
Drum roll please... (Score:2)
Where is the cost savings? (Score:2)
- Accelerated adoption of patches.
Read: hire another person just to test MS patches so that they don't screw up our system. The story would be different if bad patches were a thing of the past, but MS releases a bad patch about once every year. Try explaining to the CEO or CIO that his IT network went down because
Funny... (Score:5, Informative)
Just after Blaster started clearing up, Microsoft released MS03-039 which is essentially the SAME vulnerability as was -026. They blew it. They didn't fix the problem with the -026 patch, so admin's now had to re-patch all their machines.
Well, here we go again - only this time the exploit code precedes the MS anouncement and corresponding patch. Yes kids, the hacking underworld has perfected the exploit code for MS03-039 and in doing so uncovered yet another hole in the RPC/DCOM service for which there is NO PATCH AVAILABLE!!! (As of 11 Oct, 2003 0100)
And for those of you who think that this is just FUD... here's the exploit soucre code [security.nnov.ru]. Simply compile under Linux, then change your shorts.
Network admins: May I suggest you take your sleeping bag and pillow and put it in your car - theres going to be a lot of late nights at the office coming up.
Sueing Microsoft for security holes (Score:3, Insightful)
In a case like that, Microsoft's EULA doesn't apply at all, because the injured party isn't running Microsoft software and hasn't agreed to any Microsoft contract terms. This makes it an ordinary negligence claim.
It's like sueing an auto manufacturer because somebody had a brake failure and hit you. Even if the other party was speeding, the manufacturer can still have some liability for the accident.
Some Linux-based ISP overwhelmed by Microsoft virus spam and mail bounces should go for this. There's a real case here, with real costs (overtime, extra mail servers, more bandwidth) associated with this stuff.
As for blocking ports.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It does work. Rather well, in fact. One of the most simple, common-sense ways to start port-blocking is to block everything below 1024 except for services that you know that you want to provide. It's amazing how many networks get along just fine with nothing but http, ssh, dns, smtp, and pop-3.
By doing that and disallowing email with any executable attachments, one of the networks that I maintain has weathered all of the email/network virii/worms without a single incident - despite the fact that they have M$ machines that haven't been updated at all.
Occasionally, they'll call because someone thinks they have a virus. I'll go and scan all of the machines with the latest patterns, and guess what - no virii.
Of course, this in no way excuses Microsoft for their horrible security. It's simply a way to get at least a good start at protecting yourself.
steve
Re:OT: What the hell is wrong with Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:OT: What the hell is wrong with Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Michael is a hippie. (Score:5, Funny)
He probably has a stuffed penguin as a technical advisor, and I'd also bet that his technical advisor frequently gets pins stuck in him.
Enderle advertises he's a paid shill (Score:2)
Provides consulting services during the review process of a poorly founded negative piece on a vendor or its products and, should it be needed, showcases the research errors, statistical mistakes, and unfounded conclusions that often define such a piece.
or better yet try out a Certified Reference Account:
This acts as shield for a qualified reference account from unwanted exposure and attention by press and other IT managers. Enderle
Re:OT... My best friend's a whore! (Score:2)
It's off-topic. But give him some credit, at least it's funny.