'Think Tank' Issues Microsoft-Funded Troll 624
dlur (among many others) writes: "According to this ZDNet article, a Washington think tank known as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is soon to release a study stating that Open Source Software allows terrorists an easy time hacking into our systems. It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft."
The Register's story
is good too.
All the whoring reports in the world won't make open source any less secure. This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense
and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the
V-22 Osprey deathplane.
Also, see what their coin-operated policy dispenser spat out for
internet privacy
(eat what you're fed) and
antitrust
(advantage of Microsoft monopoly: "manufacturers of computer hardware need to provide only one
driver").
We weren't going to run this, but there were a lot of submissions, so ...
Open Source Easier to Hack (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Source Easier to Hack (Score:4, Informative)
If you're talking about open source software being easier to crack, that's a whole different story...
Re:Open Source Easier to Hack (Score:2)
Re:Open Source Easier to Hack (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Easier to Hack (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not hacking expert, but I have a feeling that finding security holes by reading the source code of software isn't much easier than prodding at it until a hole is found.
With buffer overflows, for example, I'd imagine it's much easier to find the overflows by setting up a computer running whatever software you are trying to exploit and letting a program designed to keep trying to exploit overflows until it finds the overflow. If you can figure out where in memory that buffer is with some sort of debugger, the job is probably even easier.
There's also the good old OpenBSD poster child.
Re:Open Source Easier to Hack (Score:3, Insightful)
In fairness, there are people out there who end up in charge of systems that don't have the time, inclination, or experience to install patches, upgrades, updates, etc. The people who did the default install and left it at that.
These are the people that are potentially at risk. Sure, Microsoft's code has just as many (if not more) holes in it. But the holes aren't as well known.
In a perfect (or at least mostly-intelligent) world, the Open Source argument wouldn't exist, and we'd all have more time to devote to hangliding.
But then, communism is the "perfect world" - on paper anyway.
--
Don't scream at me, I can't hear you.
Nice to see no politics (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice to see no politics being spouted here.
Re:Nice to see no politics (Score:2)
no comparison. we may be a little dirty, but you're up to yer eyes in your own filth.
SDI worked just fine. B-) (Score:3, Funny)
Seems to me it worked perfectly.
The Soviet Union collapsed, ending half a century of Cold War. The surviving USSR government officials said the major factor was SDI. Not a single nuclear bomb exploded on or above the soil of the US, its possessions, or its allies (including all the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty). And it was so powerful we didn't even have to actually DEPLOY it!
Lets see your smart bomb or a START-XVI treaty beat THAT!
Re:SDI worked just fine. B-) (Score:3, Insightful)
Precicely.
After the climax of WW II, when the world found out a nuke was more than "just a bigger bomb", the game changed.
Up until then it had been progressively bigger wars. Now it was "Let's see if we can avoid a war without surrendering."
So the West came up with the doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD - i.e. You'd be mad to set off the first nuke. And US presidents had to put on a show of being just crazy enough to use them, or it wouldn't work.) But that's just a stalemate, no "progress" pushing your agenda.
So the East came up with the "Cold War" - with anti-West propaganda and brushfire wars in "domino" countries. (Salami slicing: Pick off the little guys one by one, then the middle-size guys, until the big guy is alone against the world. Cook the Frog: Never create a "Shelling Point" were the chip is knocked off the big guy's shoulder.)
So the West came up with the arms race: "We've got more money so we can outbuid you. You make a missile, we make an anti-missile-missile." (And Rocky and Bullwinkle satarize it with the anti-anti-[pause]-missile-missile-missile.)
And this went on for HALF A CENTURY. Before that it was a major war every generation, with all the "best" weapons in the arsenal in use. Now it was a declining series of "limited wars", with the biggest bombs very carefully NOT used.
Nukes really had made "total war" obsolete. Three war cycles came and went with no World War Three. And it all worked because expensive weapons were built with the intent that they NOT be used, because they'd be too devastating if they were.
There were abortive attempts to limit the proliferation and avoid "destabilizing" situations, in the form of an anti-missile ban and arms reduction treaties. But "stable" meant the Cold War continued to bleed both sides, and one side disarming too fast might mean the War to End All Humanity. Finally Regan abandoned such attempts and went flat-out for better armor, when the USSR couldn't afford to stay even. And the Soviet Union folded.
There was a LOT more to it than that. Like computers and networks for instance. (Restrict communication Soviet style and you slow progress. Have progress in computers and networking and you get communication you can't ban. Try to selectively free your people's communication and you discover that you can't suppress just some. Infrmation wants to be free because PEOPLE want to be free.)
But at the core, preventing nuclear war was done with weapons that worked by NOT being used; weapons that thus created their effects by MAYBE being able to work, so you couldn't risk them actually being used against you.
So, yes, SDI was successfull because they didn't nuke us. The US won the arms race but we ALL won the war.
Get real
Why get real when I can win with virtual weapons? B-)
Nuclear weapons are like smallpox...America is the only country to have ever used them against someone else
I see the public schools have neglected your education when it comes to germ warfare. For starters look at the history of the European dark ages - with diseased animal carcases being catapulted over fortress walls or dropped in wells and rivers during sieges.
Lived that way for over 50 years already - but with the spectre of a massive, simultaneous attack on everything that might be a target (which means essentially everything). One or two suitcase nukes or tactical-shells taking out one city or one dam? ONE plague released in a few spots, using most like non-engineered organisims, rather than a dozen lab-frankenbugs sprayed over a continent simultaneously? Chicken feed. The damage and death is vanishingly small compared to hurricanes and tornadoes, earthquakes, traffic accidents, clogged-arteries, and cancer.
Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
They share even more letters if you spell institute correctly.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:2)
Now, from the people who brought you Sendmail (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Now, from the people who brought you Sendmail (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't forget BIND! (Score:3, Funny)
And OpenSSH.
And Tomcat.
And wu-ftpd.
And PHP.
And squid.
And mod_ssl.
...
You know, if we reduced it to just the kernel running on an isolated box locked in a secured meat locker, and you throw away the key.
But, qmail is better =)
Re:Now, from the people who brought you Sendmail (Score:2, Insightful)
Open source would have a much better security record if Sendmail were killed off.
No need. The neat thing about open source are the choices. I've used sendmail extensively in the past, but these days I'd use, say, postfix [postfix.org]. Sure, sendmail's security record is much better than it was, but I'd prefer the performance benefits of a late-model MTA, as well as the security plusses. The point is, whether we are talking about SMTP, HTTP, IMAP, POP, FTP, or whatever, there are secure servers that work great and I can use whichever one of them I please. That's a far cry from some more proprietary environments I've experienced in the past. I also like not having to wonder what gotchas are hidden in a some privileged binary I'm running.
I think everyone's spam relay record would look better if folks'd turn off the MTA daemon on systems that don't need to accept mail, though...
Re:Now, from the people who brought you Sendmail (Score:3, Informative)
All that being said, if all you need is a client sendmail mailserver, DO NOT generate your sendmail.cf from the nullclient.mc file distributed with sendmail. It WILL create an open relay. I can't get to the m4 file I created to do the trick right now, but I will be happy to provide it to any sendmail admin who wants it if they e-mail me at cwilkin3-AT-egr-DOT-uh-DOT-edu. The file generates a sendmail.cf equivalent to what nullclient.mc creates, but without the relay enabled.
Loudest (Score:4, Interesting)
If MS can fund groups such as these to spill forth what is obviously [then again, not much is obvious it seems to the 90% of the population] utter trash, surely we [ non-MS ] can do the same.
If this group spills out such toxic waste words as these, why does it gain so much attention in the general public?
Is there any reason why we cannot write an article stating "Microsoft Closed source enables Terrorists to easially render 90% of the information market paralized"... (after all, there is far more 'hard' evidence in the form of email-worms etc than there is behind what has been written in this article).
Re:Loudest (Score:2)
SPAM THEM!!! (Score:4, Funny)
From: 8axxx0r l33t
Subject: DESTROY PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE
Message:
First Post!
Heya! Did you know Bill Gates' ASCII code number is 666? That he is the root of all evil?
That there's an alternative to monopoly? And it's FREE (note: as in freedom AND as in beer).
ACT NOW and access Slashdot's webpage, news for normal people, stuff that matter. NO pop-ups, neither pop-unders, ROTFLMAO... Insightful and funny bewolfed comments from all over the world!
Thanks for your time,
l33t.
PS: This is not spam. I hate spams.
Re:SPAM THEM!!! (Score:2)
Re:Loudest (Score:4, Informative)
You mean like This Article [crn.com]??
Just in case CRN gets slashdotted, an excerpt speaking on the subject of Linux in the federal government:
'Nuff said. I think I would believe a federally-funded study by Mitre Corp. (a scientific research organization that, among other things, hosts the CVE database) before I would buy into a study by a think tank 1) that lacks Mitre's technical muscle and, 2) has a history of whoring for inter alia Microsoft, the tobacco industry, and various egregious polluters. Remember Mindcraft?
Re:Loudest (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly hope there aren't any self-proclaimed Open Source/Free Software groups that pump out such logically-challenged, clue-free blather. I'd frankly be ashamed to see something on the same order, clue-wise, being used to promote the Open Source/Free Software philosophy.
Re:Loudest (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Loudest (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that any and all "intellectual" aid -- legal, political, research / reporting, etc. should be directed towards loosening or removing Microsoft's grip on public education and government markets. Right now, we have two major entities -- Peru and Taiwan -- that have taken the plunge and are attempting to eliminate their reliance on Microsoft products. We have the US government questioning for the first time how to better secure their networks. And in a time of relative national crisis, shouldn't security at all levels be of paramount concern?
MS has proven itself incapable of (or unwilling to?) improving the security of its code, despite its ubiquity. Open source can only get _more_ stable and secure as time passes, and users / white hats continue to help find bugs in the system. So why shouldn't we have people who are willing to evagenlize OpenSource do it, but to discredit MS by selling the idea behind using Linux et al?
But maybe that's just me........
Big Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait another few months and there will be a similar study published by a different but equally prestigious organization, only with opposite conclusions. Watch for Ralph Nader to try and attach hitch his tattered wagon to anything linux-related.
And they're running... (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not running their touted monoculture on their own web servers!
Here's the solution.... (Score:5, Informative)
Who are the green suiters going to trust? A bunch of paid "think tank" lackeys or the good ole spooks behind the triple fence?
So far NSA's advocacy has been used to let me get away with all kinds of open source implementation.
Of course, NSA has an agenda too I'm sure but that's between the military and NSA.
Re:Here's the solution.... (Score:2, Interesting)
So far NSA's advocacy has been used to let me get away with all kinds of open source implementation.
And don't imagine that the folks in Redmond don't realize that. They've had their lawyers trying to pressure the DoD to stop the project (the usu arguments we've seen them use w/other gov'ts... it shows favoritism, etc.).
Re:Here's the solution.... (Score:5, Funny)
Perfect comrade! Next, send me the list of usernames and passw^W^W^W I mean, send me some completely arbitrary pornographic images for no apparent reason. Also, good idea to post here...nobody will ever discover our s3kr3t plan, nobody takes these Slashdotters seriously! (also, we have successfully planted agent code-name "Tom Ridge" high in the executive branch) Muahahaha!
Off-topic: missile defense (Score:2, Offtopic)
You are aware, are you not, that the Reagan administration's emphasis on missile defense technology forced the Soviets to spend billions on research into their own missile defense systems? And that that level of unsustainable spending contributed directly to the collapse of the Soviet economy, and the eventual dissolution of the USSR as a political entity?
Just spreading around a little knowledge.
Re:Off-topic: missile defense (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm. This leads to two questions and a note-- (1) why are we still pushing to build it, and (2) if it was a bluff, why did we actually spend any money on it at all, and (3) you're basically saying that a wasteful, bloated, expensive defense system that won't do anything was loaded with features, not bugs.
Next time, we should propose launching food into space, that'll really screw up them commies.
W
Re:Off-topic: missile defense (Score:4, Insightful)
Read the last sentence over, and over, and over.
Re:Off-topic: missile defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless we invade and force a regime change, which I'm not necessarily against. Worked for National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan, and the bad guys aren't exactly an even match today.
It's not just for ICBMs either. Shorter range ballistic missiles, like the several hundred that China has pointed at Taiwan, could be defended against by ground-based interceptors. (Guess why China is all cranky about our pulling out of the ABM treaty with the Nation That No Longer Exists.)
And what's "destabilizing" anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Off-topic: missile defense (Score:3, Informative)
A theory that was only advanced as a strategy after the fact. There is no reason to believe that we were being lied to in the 1980s when we were told that NATO believed that it could only hold off a USSR invasion of Western Europe for 4 days before being forced to resort to nuclear weapons. The generals who I discussed the strategy with in the 1980s believed that they were acting to defend against a real threat, not to break an already beaten enemy.
The theory is in any case bunk if you happen to look at Soviet economic history. To first order the Soviet economy never really recovered from the second world war. The economy was already stagnant when Breshniev took over. By the time start wars was proposed Gorbachev was already redirecting resources from the military economy to the civilian economy. The USSR never responded to star wars, therefore the theory that proposing star wars brought down the USSR is false.
As for anyone having disolving the USSR as a political objective, I don't think that was ever a US policy objective of any kind (with the exception of the Baltic states). Better to have all those missiles under control rather than have a Balkan situation with nuclear weapons.
Re:Off-topic: missile defense (Score:4, Insightful)
However, there in NO EVIDENCE that the Regan Administrations increase in defence spending, or much less their spending on missile defence systems. Please, take a look at the CIA fact books. The military spending by the Soviet Union DECREASED from the late 70s on.
Further, the time frame for this theory to be operative is between the first Regan budget for 1981 and Gorbachev(sp?) coming to power in 1984. Gorbi ended the cold war, and Gorbi ended the defacto Soviet Empire. The timing doesn't work, and the facts (from the above CIA factbooks) don't support that theory.
BTW, the increase in US military spending began with that submarine captain's Presidentcy (James Carter for those of you weak in US history). Carter started the Seawolf submarine program and the B2 Bomber program and many other wepon systems attributed to the Regan Administration.
I agree that the commentary that the Strategic Defense Initiative was destabilizing is LAME. However, what is being refered to is that in Game Theory if you have a defense against a mutually shared wepon with the power to mutually annihilate both combatants, you are more likely to feel you can use your wepon. A percieved protection by Star Wars Defense Shield, could fool stressed out people to "Go for it". But just think about what the US would be like if we did have 100% effectivity against Soviet missles, and the US successfully detonated a few dozen or hundreds of 10 megaton bombs on the Soviet Union. There was no victory scenario between the US and Soviet Union in a Nuclear exchange.
Re:Off-topic: missile defense (Score:2)
Still no reply to the email I sent Ken (Score:5, Informative)
Subject: "Opening the Open Source Debate"
Date: 31 May 2002 15:45:59 +1200
Some references you might wish to consider before publishing your article "Opening the Open Source Debate"
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi ?bw.053002/221502375 [businesswire.com]
Bruce Schneier, one of the recognized leading expert on computer security on Kerckhoffs' Principle and Secrecy, Security, and Obscurity of software.
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#1 [counterpane.com]
Dr. Blaine Burnham, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA), gives an keynote speech overview of current encryption and security technologies and outlines possible strategies for future defense.
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_play_stream.html?st ream_id=411 [ddj.com]
Also you might wish to address the issue of Microsoft's disproportionately high number of open vulnerabilities in its Internet Explorer components. All of which where discovered without access to the source code.
http://jscript.dk/unpatched/ [jscript.dk]
Richard Purcell, Microsoft's director of corporate privacy, has recently stated that any major improvement in regard to the security of it's products may be at least "5, 10 years, maybe".
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may 2002/tc20020523_6029.htm [businessweek.com]
As for the issue of Trojan horse injection into open source code, it is far from being an open source only issue.
http://www.eeggs.com/ [eeggs.com]
Or were all the "Easter Eggs" currently found in Microsoft's products officially authorized?
If you are looking for a methodology for providing a suitably secure and hardened solution, start with a real world example.
http://www.openbsd.org/security.html [openbsd.org]
I welcome any open debate.
Security through Obscurity isn't all bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
OpenBSD is, of course, not dead and a very notable exception.
Sometimes secrecy is useful in security: ask the NSA; yes, in theory, all of their algorithms would stand if they were placed in the open.
But they still keep them secret because it is one more obstacle for an intruder to have to overcome to compromise a system.
Of course, none of this matters because we're talking about M$, those nice folks asking to keep with Windows source secret because it has security flaws large enough to be considered economic and national security risks.
But, in theory, I think there are times when closes source might be the way to go.
Re:Security through Obscurity isn't all bad... (Score:3, Informative)
They also released Secure Linux [nsa.gov]
Also the NSA is also about *breaking* systems, which they thankfully don't release the source to.
Oh no! (Score:2)
There, that's better! Those Dirty Hacker-Nazi-Arab-Commie-Terrorist Bastards can't get in now!
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
you get no +1 for incorrect syntax
One of their documents is self-contradictory. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, how can we have more companies like Microsoft when that very article is condoning a monolopy? Yes, I acknowledge that they're probably talking about 'one monopoly in each market'. However, we all know that Microsoft is trying to take over as many markets as possible. How far away is Microsoft-branded Vegemite? :)
Stupid. Totally, absolutely stupid.
Re:One of their documents is self-contradictory. (Score:2)
Finding a way to exploit one OS lets you into every computer if there is only one OS.
Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon (Score:3, Funny)
Well let's see. Bill Gates started Microsoft with Paul Allen who owns the Portland Trail Blazers. Rasheed Wallace is a power forward for the Trail Blazers. Wallace played basketball at the University of North Carolina where Michael Jordan won a national championship his junior year before taking on the NBA himself. Jordan starred in Space Jam with Bill Murray who had an uncredited cameo in "She's Having a Baby" starring...Kevin Bacon.
In fact, Open Source is SO insecure... (Score:4, Funny)
$ httptype www.adti.net
Rapidsite/Apa/1.3.20 (Unix) FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6
Who wants to place bets as to when Microsoft learns of this, and promptly switches their systems?
Re:In fact, Open Source is SO insecure... (Score:2)
Re:In fact, Open Source is SO insecure... (Score:2)
$ httptype www.adti.net
Rapidsite/Apa/1.3.20 (Unix) FrontPage/4.0.4.3 mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6
Who wants to place bets as to when Microsoft learns of this, and promptly switches their systems?
Two problems with your assesment:
Re:In fact, Open Source is SO insecure... (Score:3, Informative)
Rapidsite/Apa/1.3.20 could be some bastardized version of Apache which is closed source...
Though mod-ssl is open source.
As well as OpenSSL... (duh)..
Guilty As Charged? (Score:2)
What would be the contrary to this? Would the ADTI really have us believe that hacking with paid closed software is better than open? If Open Source projects can't expect or know the ultimate intent of the users of the software then why would any closed vendor would? It sounds like ADTI does! I guess they are brilliant.
Re: de Tocqueville has been institutionalized (Score:2)
"How cruelly ironic, that the man who celebrated the spirit of volunteerism
he found in communities all across the new nation he chronicled has his good
name usurped and sullied by the likes of these."
As for the Osprey, the most recent one to crash came down not too far (which is to say not far enough) from my backyard, so I checked out what they had to say about that, but to be fair, they wrote it 5 years ago, before anybody but the manufacturers had a chance to really test its airworthiness.
Man I am so sick of the FUD. (Score:2, Interesting)
For the love of Pete, everyone else hears hackers making software know how to protect you from the hackers, err sorry crackers, er wackers, black hat, grey hat, white hat, red hat, tinky winky hat...ahh hell you know the "bad hackers" are going to do it also and make us pay. BAh...Your going to code a back door I know it. To push the point they will point to the C compiler...eww but the was to prove a point right?!
Slashdot and the legions of ethical hackers need to learn that the word hacker will forever be seen in the eyes of 90% of the world as bad. Plus no one is going to believe that a bunch of people coding for free is going to not do something devious to make money, despite what you may really do. Those same 90% of the world that see hacking as a bad word also believe people don't work for free. I guess that guy that just loves to dig ditches because it is fun is shit out of luck, because really he is not scoping out anything to steal.
-4 anti-karma whore, I will enjoy the mod-down as you just can't help but to hate the truth.
seems to me... (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, thinking isn't free...
Why is it a lie? (Score:2, Insightful)
It never crossed my mind that free software doesn't have any bugs at all. It's naive to think none will ever be able to crack your box, even if you run the latest versions and patches.
What I do understand, is that in free software your bugs are discovered and fixed faster than in proprietary, because there are (potentially) more developers and users.
Is it a lie? Hell no. It's manipulation of information? Perhaps. If you are an employe of any entity, be it the governament or a private company, and your boss asks you "With our source there for anyone to have a look, if they find a bug, can you swear that they won't crack us"?
I wouldn't answer yes. I can't answer yes, it's impossible. It's almost impossible to have a bug-free software, since almost all software development efforts always have a reason to add more features, or to make it more compatible with new products.
But, you can give good answers to this questions. Say, for example, that Linux has fewer bugs than Windows. Say that Apache, that runs most of the servers at the whole world, has caused LESS financial damage because of bugs than almost any IIS virus, worm, or whatever.
The manipulation of information comes from this side. When some people can't address the Linux problem logically, they appeal to your emotion. They cite terrorists because that's the great evil of the moment. They touch deep into your fears, and without few 1 + 1 proof.
So, attack with the same power. Say that while it's true that terrorists might have a chance to attack one server because they have found a bug, they won't spread the damages because system administrators can
What will they do, change the past?
You should have gone with your initial impression (Score:2)
You should have gone with your initial impression. Not running this, I mean. Could you please try to stuff more leftist tripe in your next article summary?
"destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense"? I'm sure most people didn't think anything like that laptop sitting on your desk was possible back in the early 1900's. The technology for reasonable missile defense may be in its infancy now, but that doesn't mean it always will be.
For those who argue missile defense is just another unnecessary aggressive move on the USA's part, I'd say that defensive weapons are the least threatening because they are the ones least likely to get us involved in foreign entanglements: it's hard to send a stationary anti-ballistic missile launcher into a land war in Asia.
And for those who argue it is unnecessary because terrorists will just ship a bomb over on a cargo freighter, I'd ask you if you keep your windows unlocked over vacation just because a thief is most likely to try the front door first. If we start covering our bases now, we won't be caught with our pants down when every rogue nation in the world has a long-range ballistic missile and a wacko with his finger on the button.
As for "deathplane"...I'm not even sure I should touch that one. I'll just say that deathplanes like it are the very reason east coasters aren't speaking German and west coasters Japanese. As a libertarian, I believe it's your right to avoid compulsory service in the military, but you should at least have the decency to respect those who fought and died for your freedom.
You should not lable this "leftist" tripe (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally, as an ex-Boeing Helicopters employee, ex-chairman of the North Dakota Libertarian Party, and U.S. Air Force veteran, I find your remarks about the author's decency out of line. Look, the ability to critique the government is one of the most important rights and responsibilities we have. And this right is steadly being eroded as we speak. As a Libertarian, you should be speaking out about that.
Re:You should have gone with your initial impressi (Score:2)
Okay, then develop your missile-shield technology and give it to every single damn country in the world - hey, it's defensive technology, isn't it? Then that wouldn't represent a security risk, but just make everyone safer, right?
The problem with missile defense is that it upsets the balance of power. Which means that, to compete, nuclear powers have to build more missiles, in the hope of reaching equilibrium again (hoping that a few might get through). Why is nuclear equilibrium important? Because mutually assured destruction is the best deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. Who cares, if the U.S. has a missile shield, you say? Well, even if that missile shield was effective (which it is not guaranteed to be, despite the gigantic cost), there is this little thing called "the rest of the world"...
So, do you agree that the U.S. should share it's defensive, non-threatening missile defense technology with the rest of the world, then?
Re:You should have gone with your initial impressi (Score:2)
Kinda takes the wind out of your sails, doesn't it?
Re:You should have gone with your initial impressi (Score:2)
Re:You should have gone with your initial impressi (Score:2)
On the other hand, I have to keep installing bigger locks on my door, because the thieves keep building bigger picks. Definitely an upset of power there.
Re:You should have gone with your initial impressi (Score:2)
You want to bring Balance to the Force?
Deathplane (Score:2)
http://www.verticraft.com/v22_crashes.htm
Is this money talking or just think-tank craziness (Score:2, Insightful)
It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft.
I don't know. I guess I still think it's more likely that they just have their head up their ass... I'm usu kind of skeptical of the "they take money from so-and-so" dismissals. There are a number of people who thought the gov't antitrust thing was out of line and ended up becoming MS boosters (rather than just DoJ criticizers) in the process of defending them. Maybe this group was like that. Okay... I must admit that in this case the report sounds exceptionally crazy, but I'm enough of a misanthrope to not rule out stupidity yet. And I'll be very curious to see how they can make this particular case in the actual report. I hope it is at least entertaining... ;-)
Re:Is this money talking or just think-tank crazin (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at another [adti.net]
one of their "studies", where they conclude that a MCSE certification
is "perhaps more valuable than a college degree". Man, these people would
make me laugh out loud if I didn't know that a whole bunch of idiots
with a lot power, money and influence regularly listen to this sort of crap.
Morel
Drivers (Score:2)
This "Tank" needs flushing (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does this organization get any press anyway? What exactly is a think tank, and what credentials does it have? I mean, is this anything more than an organization dedicated to producing biased press releases?
The organization's mission statement [adti.net] is completely devoid of meaning.
"Since 1988, the Alexis de tocqueville Instition has studied the spread and perfection of democracy around the world. In this, we follow the principles of Tocqueville himself... At the root, perhaps, is a populist belief in the basic goodness, perfectability, and nobility of mankind and of the human community...Operationally, adTI strives to emulate what one scholar has termed Tocqueville's 'omnicurious style of journalism."
Say what? I mean, read the whole mission statement. It says absolutely nothing using a lot of jackoff big words. I don't get what any of it has to do w/de Tocqueville, a french author who reported on US culture a hundred fifty years ago.
The fact that MS is funding this-- WHO ARE THESE GUYS?! I mean, why would anyone even CARE or bother reporting their opinion?
Sometimes I think these organizations exist soley to have their representatives on talk shows and to have a semblance of a structure from which to spew their opinion.
They think MSCE university degree: (Score:2)
This is gold. Frickin' gold. Quoting the Register:
Oh, we have the highest opinion of HR PHB's
SIGFPE's Think Tank Now Open for Orders (Score:2)
And that's not all! For an extra 25% I'll make a press release to a selection of the top 25 newspapers worldwide and for an extra 50% I'll submit the story to Slashdot.
Get your reports here! Get your reports here!
Bruce Shneier said it best: (Score:5, Informative)
--Bruce Scheier; Applied Cryptography (Second Edition); page 7
This seems to apply perfectly to this latest FUD about open source software.
secret source code? (Score:2, Interesting)
Where's the Evidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
I did a little poking around [mediatransparency.org] and a little Googling [google.com], but was unable to come up with any evidence on my own.
So, please, could somebody enlighten me?
-Waldo Jaquith
Re:Where's the Evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where's the Evidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
So they're a research-for-hire house, and they're going to send out a press-release that says Open Source is insecure. Now put yourself in a new-hire's shoes... Name a company that has deep pockets and might be interested in funding anti-OSS "research"...
Here's the Evidence (Score:5, Informative)
Open source helps terrorists? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google search for al qaeda and linux [google.com]
Those search results speak for themselves on who helps terrorists.
They Also Backed the Tobacco Companies (Score:5, Interesting)
"In addition to creating front groups and contributing funds to groups that have a mission broad enough to carry some of the tobacco industry's goals, the tobacco companies also use publications by allegedly independent think tanks, such as the Virginia-based Alexis De Tocqueville Institution. This group's 1994 report "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination" criticizes the US Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment methods in 4 areas: environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous cleanup. It dismisses in its first chapter the agency's risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke, using arguments similar to the tobacco industry's "junk science" arguments described by Ong and Glantz. "
It seems Microsoft is making some strange bedfellows.
Sources:
http://www.smokefreeforhealth.org/studies/YachBia
ZDNet Post [com.com]
Best defense against creaping facism (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who has a life wouldn't waste their time in a think tank. Anyone worth their salt with the brains and skills will be at a research facility building stuff, not needlessly thinking about what they might like to consider inventing, if they weren't so busy thinking.
The break throughs in the last two centuries WERE NOT made by people in "think tanks". They were created by "men of action" as Count Rugan would say from the Princess Bride. Look at men like benjamin franklin, edison, and the WOZ. Think tanks are for lazy people who would rather leach off society than get their hands dirty.
The only thing the article reveals is how little news is news today from Zdnet.
ADT Institution very pro republican (Score:2, Interesting)
My Rant on this topic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tocqueville Institution (ADTI) will suggest that open source opens the
gates to hackers and terrorists."
My $0.02:
... First of all, there ARE NO GATES! All software contains bugs,
sometimes exploitable.
hacking... yes, exactly: nimda, codeRed, klez, iloveyou, and just about
every other "virus" reported in the last two years... blah blah blah...
...shitty analogy...
See: Publications and Accomplishments
http://www.adti.net/pubsaccomps.
They don't exactly seem to be experts in any field of computers,
networks, or security that I can tell. They did some reports for more
traditional defense related topics several years ago, but thats it. They
are however, very good at reporting on controversial issues, mainly
politcal in nature. Hmmm..
Here's a question. Of the total number of security problems reported
regarding closed vs. open source products, what percentage were
pre-emptive fixes reported by whitehats, v.s. those exploited and thus
forced to be officially reported?
My point is... a bug is a bug, but it's a hell of a lot better if it's
patched before it's ever exploited. So it's totally wrong to look purely
at # of reported security problems in product XYZ. I would expect an
open source product to have a significantly higher # of reported
problems. That's a good thing IMO, since that means there's less of them
lurking.
The bottom line: Everything has bugs. More eyes, less bugs. More secure.
Simple. Now would someone try and explain that to these anti-open-source
nitwits?
Oh, and may I point out: (already reported)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/a
http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/
It seems like our
-Mark Renouf
Funded by who? (Score:2)
I'm looking for hard evidence here, not just "it stands to reason", and "of course they do - they support Microsoft".
So Open Source is insecure.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Open Source Security (Score:2, Interesting)
Open Source is more secure as the problems are fixed faster than closed source, proprietary systems.
All software, closed and open have vulnerabilities.
However, you can't PROACTIVELY peer review and fix closed proprietary software continuously, unlike open source software.
Since you cannot proactively secure closed software, who in God's name would believe such a completely ludicrous report?
God help us ALL if anyone takes those sorts of arguments and so called "studies" seriously.
-Hack
doesn't fixing the holes count?! (Score:2, Interesting)
(i submitted this story monday morning, and it was rejected....oh well
Why is anyone surprised by this? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is like being surprised that the Tolly Group [tollygroup.com] gave a good report to a product.
When you pay for a review or analysis, you get exactly what you want. This is no different than the Mindcraft [linuxtoday.com] "study" that was biased.
When a reputable group/publication comes out with an unbiased study that says these same things then you should get upset. Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors, FUD and MUD.
Nothing to see here.
Some inconveniant questions (Score:3, Interesting)
This story just might wind up biting Microsoft in the ass; if the rest of the sharks in the press start smelling blood in the water.
An odd choice for Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Light'em if ya got'em (Score:3, Interesting)
The three biggest lies redux,
smoking is good for you, windoze is secure, the check is in the mail
Here's my take (Score:3, Interesting)
But when people are interested in more than general vandalism, it becomes a different story. If I need to hack something that is open source, I check out the source, and look for buffer overruns and what not. It's hard for the very popular stuff, but for most programs, a bug is easy to find. And even for the more popular stuff, there are always holes to be found if you expend enough effort looking.
For very popular closed source programs, the first thing to try is the online community. Someone somewhere has something. For companies like Microsoft with poor security reputations, and lots of people trying to hack them, there is actually a lot.
But if you have to figure out a bug yourself, it's time for buffer overflow testing, reverse engineering with a hex editor, and what not.
So which is harder?
I'd say hacking into popular open source programs is the hardest. However, hacking into unpopular open source programs is the easiest. There is a range of security considerations, and it is always possible for evil people to find your vulnerabilities if they have enough resources.
Makes me sick (Score:5, Interesting)
From a MS "Engineer" standpoint (Score:3, Interesting)
I have certain critiques about OSS, moreso GPL's based licenses and less so BSD based licenses, but I'm not about to agree to this "OSS will increase terrorism" BS. Come on MS (et all), STOP TREATING US LIKE IDIOTS!
V-22 "death plane"??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have any idea how many military aircraft the U.S. loses on an average month? Two, maybe three. The only reason you perceive a lack of reliability on the part of the V-22 is that the national news may pick up on it more readily. Now granted, it's still got some bugs to work out, but considering the fact that proven designs have a rather high mishap rate compared to airliners, I'd say it's not much worse. Hell, the entire fleet of any given type ends up being grounded once or twice a year due to some gizmo or another being out of whack and causing an accident. A while back the entire fleet of C-141s was taken offline because the wings were developing large cracks.
I couldn't let that one pass. If you're going to blast someone else for spinning the facts, you'd better make damned sure you're not abusing language yourself if you want me to respect your argument.
Microsoft advocasy (Score:3, Informative)
Many of the headlines are quite revealing about their intentions. Many are about the importance of MCSE:
- Inc. 500 Shops Value Certification Most (MCSE vs college degrees)
- Familiarity Breeds Respect
- Technology Trends: Program Provides Information For New Age
- The Impact of Technology Training Programs Case Study: MCSE Training
And then there are numerous anti-trust criticism articles:"Recruiters tend to hire MCSEs just as often, if not more so, than those with a four-year college degree."
"Eighty-seven percent of human resource managers surveyed believed that MCSE's are equally or more successful than college students."
Etc. Also lots of articles about the precious intellectual property rights, although not specifically in relation to Microsloth.
Re:Slashdot==idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
Read that last sentence again - it's a thousand-pound gorilla.
Security breeches (Score:5, Funny)
Is that like a chastity belt or like some kind of hernia support?
Re:Talk about a troll-o-rama!! (Score:2)
After four major (Class-A) mishaps with the Osprey, two of them fatal, a Marine colonel on the project is court martialed for falsifying readiness and safety reports in order to keep the project from losing funding.
As for SDMI, recall that a number of the recent tests used targets that bore GPS locators and radio beacons, casting doubt on the validity of these tests.
So, V-22: sham. SDMI: sham. ADTI's report...
Maj. Kong
Re:In regards to the V-22 (Score:2, Interesting)
A real problem was that some administrations wanted the project and others did not. This caused Boeing and Bell to have to produce a production version before it was really ready. Our pay "Tricky-Dick" Cheney was responsible for that.
I think if the government had decided to build the plane and accepted reasonable schedules, a lot of this misfortune could have been avoided.
If you had ever seen one operating up close, you'd probably be impressed. It's a friggin cool airplane!
Re:MCSE good for democracy? (Score:2)
Gives you something to do while your elected representative is filibustering on C-SPAN.
Re:"Not going to post this..." (Score:3, Informative)
I personally don't like posting microsoft stories much, and this one kind of qualified as that too. I mean, that's part of what slashdot is about, so I do post them, but I don't like to post the exchange bug of the week, or the outrageous steve ballmer comment of the month, whatever.
So maybe that clears things up.
chrisd
Re:With open source, there is no one to bribe.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Care to explain that one to me? Professionalism is an appearance, and has nothing to do with actual security. I would liken professionalism with obscurity, because you can hide something better from people. Just because you made it hard or difficult doesn't mean it is impossible or secure. Look at the XBox hack. I'm sure they were pretty convinced that was secure.