Microsoft on Security: We'll Break Your Apps 609
jointm1k writes "Wired.com is running a story about how Microsoft is trying to act responsible and all by fixing (or trying to fix?) many (if not all) security holes in Windows. Not only new versions of Windows will be patched or improved, but as I understood they also plan to force security updates for older versions of Windows down peoples throats. Even if that means that some applications will mallfunction.
Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows."
Life of Brian jumps to mind... (Score:4, Funny)
Brian-"There's just no pleasing some people"
Beggar-"That's what Jesus said, sir"
Re:Life of Brian jumps to mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows."
I mean, come on. When they do something right, you just GOTTA change it around to make it a negative. And you wonder why MS is after Linux, right? Who's being childish now?
I'd really like to know how many lines of code the submitter even wrote if he is naive enough to think that MS architects would design the perfect OS from the start.
Re:Life of Brian jumps to mind... (Score:5, Interesting)
A god? Oh, please! (Score:3, Funny)
More like protecting a snarling pack of wolves with a duck.
let's try to be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if the article was more like "Microsoft breaks apps to implement security, offers expensive upgrades" then we could continue kicking M$'s family jewels guilt-free.
Re:Life of Brian jumps to mind... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Life of Brian jumps to mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
In a perfect world, operating systems would be perfectly interoperable. 100% compatible operating systems don't (given less than a minute of thinking, at least) strike me as a very lucrative market. Why buy a particular OS when you can do the same with the others?
And, to continue my downward spiral to flamebaitdom, let's address the "...and deal with product activation and force DRM down your throats." What is the big deal about product activation? You fill in the form, which only asks you what country you're from (the rest is purely optional, at least on my install CD's) and hit the submit button. That'st he end of it. I've installed WinXP on two desktops and one laptop with this CD and haven't had the MS storm troopers come knocking on my door yet. As for the DRM technologies, so far I have felt no impact from them. While it does apparently exist in Media Player, there's a simple solution around that, don't use Media Player to rip your CD's. I use this marvelous little program called CDex [n3.net] that does a one-stop rip from CD to MP3, Ogg, or any number of other formats. All DRM-free, plays on any computer with the proper codecs. Windows is not forced DRM-land yet, and personally, I doubt it ever will be. Right now we're hearing scares from the 'for the people' organizations about how horrible the future will be and that all this is being pushed through the system without opposition. Believe me, the instant the average consumer is impacted negatively by this, the backers of whatever measure that struck a nerve will be forced to back off.
Good day.
Re:Life of Brian jumps to mind... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Life of Brian jumps to mind... (Score:3)
For now, you can turn off DRM. How long will that last?
As for your theory on keeping others from stealing your music, I doubt that was the intent.
From what I can tell, it was formualated out of hopes that the media cartel would be able to feel comfortable selling songs online to users.
Microsoft knows that Windows Media Player fights a battle on many fronts, from Real to QuickTime to free alternatives. Knowing this, they hoped that they could sell the idea of online media protected with DRM to those who stand to gain the most from it.
In a perfect world, DRM would be a choice, the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world could pawn their crap off to willing cutomers, and nobody would complain about the existance of MP3, OGG, and DivX.
Unfortunately big Media wants DRM to be obligatory and Microsoft wants to run the digital information arena. They both have something to gain from it, so to hell with the wishes of the users.
What's going on with the editors lately? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay,let's be serious for a moment, guys. There was this week when you had 10 stories from new planets being discovered that probably would lead everyone to "rethink what they know about the universe". Then you had the week of nonsense "ask slashdot" questions. Now we're getting to a point where Slashdot is ceasing to be "News for nerds" go turn into a MS bashing forum. I mean, from "News for nerds" to Linux advocacy to MS bashing, what is this turning into?
Can't you guys be scientificaly honest? These are complex subjects and it's not a question of "wanting" to design a good OS, it's a question of complexity in designing a good OS. Or are you guys just trying to look cool to your friends with that 'anty-MS' stance? Take a look ate the usage logs on Slashdot visitors' OSes. Then come back to tell me that the vast majority is at work and is forced to use Windows. I'll just laugh
I would gladly pay a disuation fee to discuss on slashdot. Wasn't there an ideia like that sometime?
Re:What's going on with the editors lately? (Score:5, Insightful)
One or two Microsoft stories are published everyday, no matter how insignificant the news is. Even if the news is a good thing, typically the submitter of the story puts a negative spin on it (like today's submission). Of course everyone jumps in and bashes away, not only at Microsoft, but at anyone who tries to speak positively about Microsoft. It doesn't do well to encourage intelligent discussion--anyone who is happy using Microsoft products and speaks up about it around here quickly becomes bitter and defensive. Or they leave.
Slashdot nowadays is quite similar to the media in the middle east. My grandfather lived in Dubai for 8 or 9 years, and he was amazed that the newspapers had an article about "The Jews" on the front page, every day. The Dubai media never referred to Israel. "The Jews" were always killing Muslim children, subverting the government, doing-random-very-crappy-thing, etc. The media was breeding hate among the people.
The big difference between Slashdot and Dubai is that the Dubai government was intentionally making people hate to distract them from shady things it was doing, and Slashdot's de-evolution is (probably) not intended. It definitely seems that the editors have got some bug up their ass about Microsoft, but I think they're just publishing what kicks up the most response rather than trying to fan the flames.
I think it's because Slashdot has become the epicenter of a pro-linux geek subculture. In this subculture, it's cool to hate Microsoft. Folks want to fit in somewhere, so they come to Slashdot and bash Microsoft.
Linus said in this interview [bbc.co.uk]:
"I've tried to stay out of the Microsoft debate. If you start doing things because you hate others and want to screw them over the end result is bad."
I don't think he hates Microsoft. He likes Linux.
Re:Forced Security update = Forced Application upd (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they let these vulnerabilities, some of which can be used for massive digital attacks, continue to exist in a product with their name on it? And it's not going to "render everything useless," Mr. Hyperbole.
When you have your computer connected to the internet, it is your responsibility to make sure you don't do any damage with it - intentional or not. Too many people have ignored that moral/social obligation.
Think of it as a Digital Emissions Inspection. If your old car can't pass modern emissions regulations, but you want to still drive it, you'll need to replace some old parts with new parts, and those repairs aren't guaranteed to be cheap.
What if people had a wireless phone that, due to age and poor initial programming, started jamming all other wireless signals within 500 feet. Is it fair to let these phones continue operating, just cause they were able to many years ago? Of course not. The FCC or some agency would recall/outlaw these phones. Well, computers are approaching that level of potential for damage, in that compromised systems can easily be used for massive DoS attacks that can seriously disrupt large networks. Software developers and users have a responsibility to do their best to make sure this does not happen.
Everyone complains about the security problems in Windows, and have derided them for it for years. So when Microsoft trys to own up and fix the problems, 3rd party application developers should do their part and follow suit.
Applications will mallfunction?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Applications will mallfunction?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Rock and a hard place (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rock and a hard place (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rock and a hard place (Score:2)
Re:Rock and a hard place (Score:2)
Ok, lets be realistic here. When it comes to security, I don't think there's a question of whether or not Microsoft wants windows to be secure. The question is, are they able to make it secure.
You can argue that MS is evil due to their business practices. You can argue that they are incapable of producing anything other than bug riddled, insecure pieces of bloatware. But lets get real. It's not like they intentionally put the security holes into their products just to hurt their users. All of this makes for extremely bad press and I'm sure MS would like nothing more for it to go away.
Re:Rock and a hard place (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, the flak from Nimda, melissa, et. al. have begun to impact thier market share (or thier internal analysts believe the market will follow that trend), and they have started to give lip-service to security.
But they still can't alienate that customer base they spent 20 years numbing into ignorance. Will we see real security? Not for long time. Will we see secure "wrappers" around the inherently insecure MS offerings? Yes, but I guarantee there will be ways to disable them immediately if it impacts revenue.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with a company's management considering market growth and revenue when making decisions. Decent people do, and temper it with service to the greater community, morality, and improving the lives of thier employees and customers. MS operates as though all of those issues are served by the marketing department.
Re:Rock and a hard place (Score:3, Insightful)
According to everything I've ever read, and my own personal experience, Windows' security holes have absolutely nothing to do with the creation or popularity of Linux.
I don't use Linux to avoid using Windows. I use it because it's the best thing available.
Re:Rock and a hard place (Score:2)
People don't apply MS patches because a) They were told the OS was perfect when they bought it, or b) they remember the last patch, the one that made the office unbearable for two weeks, or c) They've been burned by the MS upgrade licensing cycle enough times that they'd rather hope for the best than volunteer for the worst.
Whiners (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the submitter claims that "they should have fixed them when they designed Windows." What kind of fucking bullshit logic is this crap? Do we piss and moan that Linus is a stupid mangina because the virtual memory in the early 2.4 kernels was fucking trash?
Get with the fucking program: MS isn't *all* bad, and they are not 'forcing upgrades down people's throats." It's still your option to have a shitty, fucking security hole laden sloth of an OS.
Re:Whiners (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whiners (Score:2)
It reminds me of yesterdays discussion where people flamed a guy for wanting to move away from MS SQL Server, since he was currently using MS products they weren't gonna help him move to OSS. Great use of logic there.
My point is, zealots spreading FUD and being assholes hinder OSS more than MS ever could hope to achive.
Re:Whiners (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh it's on now
We're bitching because their extremely late fix breaks non-shitty apps that were coded to the best of coders' collective abilities with the docs and design microsoft presented at the time.
"They should have fixed them when they designed Windows" is no bullshit logic. Many of Microsoft's security problems are not simple bugfixes, they are serious design flaws, which are irrepperable without breaking userland in bad ways. Nobody "moans that Linus is a stupid mangina because the virtual memory in the early 2.4 kernels was trash" because it got fixed without changing the interface to userland, so it didn't break anything to fix it. The overall big picture of linux's VM design from the apps' point of view was correct all along, there were just implementation bugs in early 2.4 that got fixed later.
Get with the fucking program: MS IS all that bad, and they *are* forcing upgrades down many user's throats because of the way updates, the EULA, and customer legal obligations interact.
I will agree with you on your last sentence though.
Re:Whiners (Score:3, Funny)
You must not have read the new EULA's.
But your right. MS is not all bad. Just mostly.
Application designers should comply, too. (Score:4, Interesting)
But shouldn't 3rd party application designers be held similarly responsible for relying on these holes in their programs, and release patches of their own to avoid problems, possibly through Microsoft and bundled with the windows patch?
Re:Application designers should comply, too. (Score:3, Interesting)
But you can't really do that until the base upon which the applications are written is itself secured. Can you?
Right. You'd have some serious application down-time between MS and 3rd party patch releases. Thus, the need for MS and 3rd parties to work together to release the patches concurrently (=logistical nightmare).
Designed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Designed (Score:3, Interesting)
As they moved forward to later versions of Windows, they were willing to let some, but not all of the backward compatibility slip. However, as the Internet came along, they seemed to have become more concerned with delivering functionality over security - does email really benefit from a scripting language IN the message content?
The goal for the early Windows designs however, had always been about the "isolated" consumer and small business, while the *NIX implementations were looking at shared user environments and workspaces, and had the horsepower to enforce them. The amazing fact that Linus T. managed to shoehorn a *NIX implementation into a cheap x86 box was also largely a testament to the platform had grown beefy enough to handle it.
Re:Designed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Designed (Score:3, Interesting)
But kernel security is only a small piece of the problem. Most modern virii and trojans operate strictly in the applications domain - they don't need to touch any kernel files or memory in order to do their nasty work.
Microsoft adopted the COM mentality a long time ago. And it was a very good concept - it introduced componentized software for the first time into a large scale market (see caveat below). But unfortunately it was done without regard for security, with the result that any old script can use COM (or whatever the marketing droids call it this year) to control dangerous software (such as outlook). So on the one hand we have a very nice software concept, implemented by the largest OS supplier; but on the other hand we have a great increase in security holes.
Microsoft also did not until recently pay enough attention to the security monster they had created. In fact, it is very hard for them to do much at this point without breaking their nice paradigm. They can patch holes in network connected middleware and systems software (for example, exhaustively searching for buffer overflows cuased by careless C/C++ programming). But stopping users from executing viral scripts is much harder.
A couple of asides...
I discovered, by accident, that anything that windows considered executable can apparently be binary code! For example, a
Regarding COM. COM is a neat idea. Unfortunately Microsoft apparently became so enamoured with it that they just ignored another extremely powerful and much older concept for componentized software: command line execution of everything, with pipes (filtering), and with character (ASCII) formats for almost all files. This is the UNIX model and is a very nice, simple abstraction that beats the pants off of COM for many, many things. As one who uses Windows2000 as a primary desktop, with Cygwin as a primary software development platform, I really appreciate having BOTH models, and really get disgusted with the lack of scriptability for most Windows utility, and the cryptic, bloated binary file formats that most Microsoft software use for configuration and simple data storage.
Damage control. (Score:5, Insightful)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they slowed it down to a large degree *now* in order to do this, don't you think Linux and other OSs have a legitimate shot at taking over?
MS will do whatever MS decides will let it maintain its position in the marketplace, and God bless them for it.
Microsoft Vs. Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclamer: Yes, I do love Linux, no I do not hate Microsoft, as a matter of a fact I am a
Say that again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bugs (*aheam* features) and Security flaws are not intended to be part of the package. They happen because of bad design and bad coding practices and bad decisions. And no matter how hard you try (and try as you may even in the case of Linux) its impossible to do so during the design or coding time.
I would applaud this effort to force it down the throats of customers (atleast it would reduce the number of vulnerable servers sitting out in the open), but it goes only as far as any user would want to.
Not Correct (Score:5, Interesting)
The editiorial is innacurate and opinionated.
They are actually giving up on trying to secure older products.
And they are stating that for new security fixes on current products they are now putting security as a higher priority than not breaking the apps.
So rather than provide the security turned off, in the hope that some MCSE will turn it one once the app has been patched, the security is on even if the app breaks.
Now, regardless of the anti M$ feelings, this has got to be a good approach.
Yes you can read it as "Hear comes DRM, suck it down" or you can read it as "Secure by default really does matter, becasue we know 95% of users never change from the default settings" - the latter approach is taken by Suse in 8.1 and I don't see
Re:Not Correct (Score:2)
siri
Novell guilty of the same (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a bigger problem out there -- laziness. Microsoft and others have made security patches available that admins simply do not install. If they did, the world would be a better place. I mean, I still get tons of Code Red hits on my web server. Patches have been available for that for....how long?!?!?!
Silly aside (Score:4, Insightful)
for christsake (Score:4, Insightful)
What os didn't need security fixes after it was released?
Re:for christsake (Score:2)
There going with the times... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you have to remember that Microsoft used to put functionality before security. There is a tradeoff between functionality and security. For example, do you allow mailing functionality within the VBS language and the macro language? There is a reason why there are over 20 worms that can spread using MSN messenger, and none that can spread using Yahoo messenger.
However, times change, and people change. Now people put security before functionality. Microsoft is just going with the times...
Security has to be part of the foundation (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism. Of course. (Score:3, Funny)
Let's roll.(tm)(r)(c)
Re:Terrorism. Of course. (Score:2)
Oh, I can see the dialogue now (Score:2, Funny)
App developers: And just exactly how is this different from Windows as it stands now?
God dammit! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:God dammit! (Score:3, Interesting)
What about ... (Score:2)
Windows XP sp1 locked out WinXP installations using stolen keys from using WindowsUpdate or applying patches.
Will this new initiative reverse that practice?
Remember, it won't matter to most people if a Windows installation was pirated or not when it's the one being used as a DDoS zombie, spewing out viruses over SMTP, or something similar ... just that it is Windows.
(Btw: Plz 2 mod as +1 Insightful)
Implications for software interoperation (Score:5, Interesting)
And Samba is just a randomly picked example.
the fact of the matter is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the fact of the matter is (Score:2, Interesting)
windows just doesnt seem like it was designed to take on improvements
How many software projects as large and mature as the Windows code base can you name that are not terribly brittle? It's hard to create code that is extensible and maintainable.
When Win2K was being developed, peoples concerns were crashes and reboots, so they focused on that. Now concerns are centered around security. I'm no lover of M$, but it seems to me they are listening to their customers.
[/troll]
Removal of a Linux adoption barrier (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company is looking at redoing an application for the windows base it may just be easier for them to make it work with WINE than with the new windows code base.
I am sure Microsoft is aware of this. There must be some really big holes they are going to close with action or they would not consider dropping the support for legacy applications.
Look, I don't want to state the obvious, here, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Next you'll be criticizing the quality of the beef at McDonald's.
Most Americans want to surf the web, download MP3s, and spend $2500 to watch the Matrix DVD on a two hour flight, and they'll pay the same amount for Windows whether Microsoft makes it secure, or not.
Bill Gates is a smart business man. Microsoft is a successful business. As such, the $ is the bottom line. Analzying their products from any other perspective is a waste of time.
Enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
Every vendor Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Red Hat, Debian can create an incident where a patch breaks a vendors application.
I've personally seen it happen with 4 out of the 5 vendors already. Deal with it. AFAIK there is still no forced patching. Your OS doesn't just up and DIE if you decide not to patch your OS because you are aware that patching will create problems for you.
On another note - Certainly Slashdot leans a little left politically and leans a lot toward "open solution" computing but everything about this story just reaks. "windows-ain't-done-while-competing-apps-still-ru
Give it a rest. Your just starting to look foolish now.
Pulitzer (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully we can look forward to more posts containing phrases like "I reckon" and "Y'all" to appear on Slashdot soon. Not to mention that there isn't even anything new in this post at all that has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot already.
What Mundie said, online (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, one of the big selling points of Wintel is that you have a wide choice of software. In the future, however, Mundie says that you can expect your old apps to be broken.
"We have decided that we will begrudgingly forsake certain app compatibility things when, in fact, they don't allow us to have a default configuration that opts for more security. In the past, the biggest thing that happened to us was IT managers would come to the company and say, hey, all those new features, they're great, all that new security stuff, that's great, but whatever you do don't break my app. So just turn it all off and trust me, we'll fix the apps and then we'll turn it all on. And the reality is that never happened.
And so we're going to tell people that even if it means we're going to break some of your apps we're going to make these things more secure and you're just going to have to go back and pay the price."
Notice that they're breaking your old apps not so they can sell you new ones, but purely in the interest of your security, and furthermore it's your fault they have to do this.
The other point Mundie makes is that, even after they sell you the new OS and the new apps, any security needed will be your responsibility, at your expense.
"And the other thing is that the customers, whether they're individuals or corporations, are going to have to make a decision about when and how much they spend to get these machines to be more secure. And to some extent you can do it by insulating them, to some extent you can do it by putting things around them or in front of them that protect them, you know, firewalls in some sense. And then in some cases, you can just replace them when you get new machines or new software or both that have intrinsically better capabilities."
Thanks, Microsoft, I'm glad you're looking out for my interests.
Re:What Mundie said, online & apple (Score:2)
I think his use of begrudgingly is mildly amusing. The word suggests envy or ill-will towards another person, in its common usage.
By contrast, I was impressed by Apple's maintenance of backwards compatibility for the longest periods. My 15 y.o. dumb little CS apps still run fine without any sense of "emulation" going on, and as they went from 16-bit to 32-bit and other advances,, for the most part the only apps that broke were the ones that flouted the programming rule set out in Apple's detailed manuals re API and such. Now they seem to be honoring this a little less (OS X obviously is a big step), but I thought that was cool. Maybe the little fish just has to be more polite.
They started three years ago? (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft didn't start thinking about security until Windows 2000 was a release candidate?
Software Engineer: Uh, Craiggers... I just heard some disturbing news.
Craig Mundie: Don't bother me now, I almost beat Bill's fastest time on Minesweeper.
SE: Well, it's just that Joe apparently didn't design any security infrastructure into Windows.
CM: Security what?
SE: Well, remember when I was telling you about how "hackers" can very easily get information on your computer?
CM: What, like that Stellman fellow and his hippie freedom shit?
SE: Not really.
CM: Well, if you think it's important, I'll have Bill send a memo out about it.
"Trustworthy Computing, a sweeping overhaul of Microsoft's software, business models and programming practices, was publicized in January [of this year] by a company-wide memo from Microsoft chairman Bill Gates."
NNYYYYEEEAAARGHHHH! (Score:2, Insightful)
AAAARRRRRGGGGHHH! You know, people went DOWN in that freaking airplane, went down and smashed into the ground and died and burned up. And I am SICK TO DEATH of now hearing the phrase used to hawk and shuck and promote every kind of consumeristic bullshit and political jingo. Can we pass a consititutional provision to the First Amendment that you aren't allowed to use the phrase "Let's Roll" in public unless you're actually about to confront terrorists on a hijacked plane?
Re:NNYYYYEEEAAARGHHHH! (Score:2, Insightful)
Aye (Score:2)
I agree. They really should have designed Windows better. Or maybe they shouldn't have designed it at all, but just followed POSIX. _That_ would have made programming so much easier (especially cross-platform, but also just for Windows - win32 API is cruft)! Plus they would have gotten all the good security they are now still trying to get with Windows NT and XP. And it's not like they don't know that stealing well is better than inventing badly.
PPRR (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll buy it that they really care about this stuff when they start building software over previous security-related experience, and I'm not talking patches here, I'm talking OS re-writes based on what works and doesn't security wise.
ONce Again (Score:4, Insightful)
No they shouldn't have. Can you imagine the problems with Windows 95, if they would have put tight security on it.
Inexperienced computers users would have throw their hands up in frustration(why can't i install this program!, why won't the printer install! I forgot my password) why do i have to add a new user).
Most people just want to get e-mail, surf the web, run quicken. As users starting demanding more(functionality, security, stability) they will switch to a different OS, or MS will have to improve. Which it seems they are trying.
Windows has plenty of room for improvement, but statement seems a bit of a reach.
GRR!!! (Score:2)
Boss: I hate to say this to you, but due to the recent economical slump.. I'm gonna have to let you go..
Worker: Boss! Boss! Something happened to all the computers! The database client isn't opening up!
Sys Admin being laid off: You were saying..
wonder if this has anything to do with that CA law (Score:3, Interesting)
With that new law, companies would have to report hacks of systems. If MS fixes as many holes as they can before this new law can get swung around, the public won't find out how vunerable they are by using their OS.
How about 1% ? (Score:3, Interesting)
"... slides also showed the surprising results of automated crash reports from Windows users. A mere 1 percent of Windows bugs account for half of the crashes reported from the field."
Misleading... (Score:2, Interesting)
Starting with the benefits:
1. Patches in their current form do not work very well as sysadmins don't tend to keep up to date as much as they should. (Windows Update is an attempt to address this. Success is arguable...). Forcing people to install patches "Plugging those holes, he said, would require not just rolling out new versions of Windows, but forcing security fixes onto users of older Windows versions, which he claimed was 30 to 40 times larger than the installed base of current versions" would definitely address this.
2. This would make a lot of currently running, older microsoft machines more secure
On the bad side now:
1. You are forcing people to act in a way that might cause financial damage to them (breaking existing applications), and which might be unnecessary. There is no such thing as blanket security, it's all rather individual. (If someone is running an in-house webserver for their private intranet, patching the OS will not stop the people who might want to damage this as the probability is that they're also working for the company.)
2. This kind of approach is misleading as to the total security of the system. What's the point of patching Win95 when anyone can log in and have adminstrative privileges? Even Microsoft accept that their old OSs (win9X) are not capable of being secure. [theregister.co.uk]
3. We have yet another misleading claim that microsoft are secure and that security is achieved through Microsoft because they are getting tough!!! They're effectively saying that their products will make you secure... Security is not about products, it's about risk and what you do about it. Mr Schneier says it perfectly "Security is a process"...
It's the Applications,NOT the OS,that needs fixing (Score:5, Informative)
As of 1 November there are currently 31 unpatched vulnerabilities [pivx.com] in Microsoft's Internet Explorer, known and exploitable for MONTHS. Changing to XP, or in some cases even to MacOSX, will not provide the Users documents and data any more protection from exploitation of the above vulnerabilities.
Anything the user has read or write access to, the attacking script also has access..
Wait a minute...? (Score:2, Insightful)
total cost of ownership argument? (Score:2)
"We're all going to have to collectively spend more, both in the development and maintenance of these machines, if were going to be more secure."
This may have some interesting fallout: the phrase "Total Cost of Ownership" has been tossed around with great enthusiasm and increasing frequency in every meeting I've attended in the last year. (Not that anyone necessarily knows how to compute a realistic TCO, but it appears to be important to mention it at least once in any discussion.)
The cost of maintenance and support is particularly important to companies that don't have a lot of money to throw around, and those companies often use older hardware and software...if a tool still meets their basic needs, they don't upgrade.
I know it's a lot to read into a one sentence quote, but the implication seems to be that Small Company, Inc., still running NT4 and Win98/2000, must -- for the good of everyone -- start spending more money to maintain their machines. I'm not sure that's going to be an appealing proposition.
Any thoughts?
Two Things (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't fault Microsoft for not keeping up with Windows 95 compatibility and security issues this far down the line. Yes, admittedly it's a self-serving decision to push people into buying new Microsoft products that gain them revenue. But it's also a huge cost to maintain the old creaky code for little or no return.
I would no more blame MS for dropping support for old software than I would blame the Linux kernel developers for not supporting older kernel interfaces.
Second, this is a real opportunity for Linux to take up that ball of mud. I know it's ugly, but there's lots of people out there running crusty old Windows 95 compatible applications that would break if they upgraded to Windows XP.
They might really love that particular application, see no other need to upgrade, and not want to upgrade if they're going to lose the use of their favorite application.
Let them drink WINE at the Linux table!
Wonderful! (Score:5, Interesting)
We can't even get the users to try and open the spreadsheets in Excel or Word. They just refuse to do it. My recommendation in the last meeting was to just turn off Lotus 2.4 and WordPerfect (apps run on server) and tell the user either to use Microsoft Excel and Word or find a new job.
My point being, Microsoft is doing exactly what should be done. You want everything to be stable and secure, well you better be ready to upgrade or patch whatever doesn't work after we do our fixes.
"We'll break your apps" (Score:2)
How is this possibly considered news?
-psy
Couple of things.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The story never mentions *how* they plan to force users of older systems to patch and upgrade their security. As has been the topic of many a comment, the biggest problem in security is an admin/user who doesn't patch. If they haven't been able to get people to patch in the past, how do they think they can force a win95 user to patch their box now?
The best they can hope to do as far as *forcing* upgrades is making the automatic "microsoft update" manditory and non-removable. Imagine the uproar...
Second, a reality check...you will never squash all bugs. Software is a dynamic beast, especially when it comes to operating environments. As the systems grow and functionality increases, so do the chances for bugs. It's a simple fact that the more lines of code you have, the more bugs you have. Microsoft is as able to squash all bugs in all their software as any *nix system is to fix every single bug in theirs. It just isn't going to happen...no system is perfect.
"Nice to see Microsoft taking reponsibility for their mistakes, but they really should have done so when they designed Windows"
I particularly liked that part...as the current incarnation of the internet did NOT exist when the first versions of DOS came out. Heck, most people didn't know what a dialup was when 3.1 came out. Early MS systems were never designed to be multi-tasking, let alone multi user, and therefore never needed security...it simply wasn't thought necisary. If the computer is going to be used by one person and not connected to the net (such was the case in the early 80's), then why include extra usless security code? The same design base was used and simply extended to maintain backward compatability as time progressed. Thus MS saying that their design is fundamentaly insecure...because it didn't HAVE to be secure in the early days. After all, it's easier to expand than re-write...especially if you do want to backward compatability.
As I see it, the sins of the past are more about business practice (which is abhorent), than it is about software design. After all, they have migrated their new OS's to a fundamentaly NT based system, and have increased security and stability in the process. I'm not saying they don't have a ways to go, I'm just saying that it is better than it was.
In anycase...I'm happy with debian, so I don't care what they do for my sake. I hope that something good comes of this so that my parents can get a more stable and more secure OS...
-Frozen
Simpsons Security... (Score:3, Funny)
Homer: Hi. Who are you?
Craig: I help run a big computer company.
Homer: Oh. Hi! Do you have donuts?
Craig: Listen, I know you are a typical user and I want to share with you some very important details about your future personal computing experience.
Homer: Huh?
Craig: You have a computer. You bought it from us in 1996.
Homer: I did?
Craig: Well, your son did. He didn't buy it either.
Homer: Oh.
Craig: Anyhow, we let him keep it. We found out its insecure and in the next day or so, you will need to buy a shiny new one.
Homer: Why?
Craig: Because its insecure.
Homer: Why?
Craig: Because. So the old stuff won't work anymore.
(pause)
Craig: That's bad.
Homer: Doh!
Craig: But you have the chance to buy all new stuff. That's good.
Homer: I'm getting bored. Do you have donuts?
Craig: No. I'm off now. By the way, can you tell Mr. Burns that the software at his nuclear plant won't work on Monday, provided it isn't hijacked by terrorists after we roll out the new version?
Homer: Why did I let him in my house? How *did* he get in my house?
Reminds me of a Chris Rock routine... (Score:4, Insightful)
But this story reminds me of that great Chris Rock routine. (paraphrasing, and substituting the N word)
People always want credit for something they're supposed to do.
I ain't never been to jail. What do you want, a cookie?!
I take care of my kids. You're supposed to you dumb motherfucker!
So yes, while it is good that MS is doing this, I think that it is no big deal - they should do it. I am not going to praise them for it, this is what they should have done long before now. I am not going to rail on them either, because they are making some kind of effort. Assuming that they actually do what they say they are going to do. Sorry, but they have a bad track record, I am not going to believe it until I see it. Why am I skeptical? Among other things, I have seen the Win2kSP2 EULA. I wonder what the EULA on these new security patches will look like...
Why this is good, why this is bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
The good is that Microsoft is finally going to fix their problems. It's about damn time. The bad is that Microsoft is spinning this thing as if they weren't greatly responsible for the mess they are about to inflict. IMHO, and it is only that, if Microsoft spent more time and resources on testing their crap in the first place instead of pushing it out the door then perhaps so MANY holes wouldn't need to be patched now. There will always be bugs and security flaws but Microsoft as made releasing filth and spinning it as if it were a good thing an art form in itself.
As always, this is just my opinion. Your milage may vary.
As long as it isn't on purpose... (Score:5, Insightful)
A security patch on any OS could potentially cause problems with software that runs on it. However, it wouldn't put it past me for Microsoft to purposefully make sure that competing products are broken.
At best case, MS isn't going to purposefully break anything. This is a legitimate attempt to fix security.
At worst case, this might Microsoft's first step in "testing" the strength of the court to see if they'll notice/tolerate them purposefully breaking applications and then claiming they can't release the fixes to the application maker because it is part of Windows "security."
Its always the same trade off (Score:3, Insightful)
So, <paranoid disclaimer>whatever Microsoft is implying when they say that they will break applications</paraoind disclaimer>, it is always "Give me convenience or give me security" (Kudos to these fine guys [deadkennedys.com]), otherwise we wouldn't use passwords, encrypted authentication and other inconvenient stuff etc. "Why not just skip all these logins? They make my brain hurt from all the stuff I need to remember..."
So again, either you demand more knowledge, responsibility and work from the user, or you leave all the necessary security decisions to the software... There is a lot of reason for criticizing Microsoft in many ways, but I think its quite unrealistic to ask for ultimately convenient, ultimately secure software simultaneously... Consequently, either bash them for being insecure or for giving up convenience, please don't do both at the same time, because that doesn't seem to make much Sense(TM) to me... .)
What of End-User Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as there's no DRM packaged with it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Insecurity (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot: Damn them and their bugs!!!
Microsoft: Okay, we've created the patches, but you may lose a little functionality.
Slashdot: Damn the patches!!! Admins can fix this themselves!!!
Anybody see something wrong with this picture?
Tightening up Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft may prohibit self-modifying code and code on the stack. You don't get any performance gain with either technique any more, since processors went superscalar.
And maybe Microsoft will delete the 16-bit compatibilty engine. It's time. In NT 3.5x, the 16-bit engine was optional, the system ran fine without it, and it should have stayed that way.
Microsoft will probably do something to break Word 97, and blame it on "security". They need the revenue. But there's a problem:
Plugging those holes, he said, would require not just rolling out new versions of Windows, but forcing security fixes onto users of older Windows versions, which he claimed was 30 to 40 times larger than the installed base of current versions.
XP sales must be lower than Microsoft admits. Microsoft has to make sure that their pressure forces people to upgrade to XP, rather than locking people into the legacy OS. Expect something on the server side that makes Internet usage difficult for legacy users.
A terrific move by Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem with NT is that it attempted to maintain compatibility with older stuff. It was important at that time they do it like this. (Personally, I think they should have thrown compatibility to the wind long ago to focus on stability and security... it's a SERVER after all, not a game machine or a workstation... make a separate workstation product with compatibility modules... but that's history now anyway...)
Now, with intense focus on security, they are proving themselves as serious players in sacrificing "performance and compatibility" by closing serious holes even at the expense of current software compatibility. I say BRAVO Microsoft for making such a bold and courageous move. Only a company with monopoly force can really afford to pull that move off and if you ask me, it's a decision late in coming.
Many people have me labelled as anti-microsoft [yacg.com] and a Linux pusher but actually I'm not. While I agree with most of the anti-microsoft commentary and just about all of the pro-linux and open source stuff, I'm not religious about it. If I like it or see value in it, I'll use it. It's that simple. I appreciate what I interpret as a mature direction Microsoft is about to undertake.
I think it's a bit unfair for jointm1k to tack on the bit about "shoulda done it before they designed Windows..." In an industry that changes as often with technology as it does with "fashion" (consider shifts to and from client-server) It's tough for any company to keep up with current times let alone predict the future of computing 10 years down the road... even a company that, at times, sets the standards of industrial computing.
Microsoft has lost a lot of respect in the industry -- not only in the eyes of IT professionals, but also in the eyes of blue/grey-suited business people. I think it's important for Microsoft's future to do that. I'm also a little afraid of what would happen to computing in general if there were a mass shift away from Microsoft. I wish it were, but I don't think Linux based business solutions are ready for prime-time. (* brace for impact! *)
Long live Linux and all it stands for. Peace out.
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:5, Insightful)
My take on this "impractical". A new version of OS comes out in every couple of years, and in near future I can expect it to be every year. Now that means shelling out money on new, improved version of apps and systems. Let me tell you there are people still using win95 and very happy with it coz it still works. Tell them to upgrade every year and shell out $500 a year on system. They'll just smile at you and say -"boy are you out of your mind, no way"
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft lives on the income from OS/Office upgrades at least as much as from new installs.
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:2)
Well I guess it is implied, don't you think?
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:4, Insightful)
But if the apps are purchased, that is a bit much to swallow. Of course, if MS has service packs that fix the broken apps, then I guess it would not be so bad.
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:2)
Frankly, this is the way pretty much ANY major software product is. Deal with it dude.
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:5, Interesting)
"I might be threatening to write code."
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, you can still run your old a.out apps from 5 years ago provided you have the right libraries installed.
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I HAVE read Linus's post on LKML and that is far from true. In most cases he is willing to break the internals of the kernel but he loaths to break something in userland (but will do it if there is a really really good reason). That is why most programs written for 2.0 still work for 2.4.
Re:Microsoft and Linus (Score:5, Insightful)
True. However, if the userland apps are written properly using a sufficiently high-level language, even C, and using standards-based and/or portable APIs, then kernel changes should break only the invervening abstraction layers. Download the updated API or whatever (not much effort), and the huge amount of effort that went in to the userland app is preserved.
This is why I feel so sorry for people who write applications using Windows-only or UNIX-only or whatever-only APIs, when there are portable ways of doing things. Taking standards documents and black-lining the parts that aren't implemented on all the target platforms (thus achieving the lowest-common-denominator) goes a long way towards producing an application that will tolerate volatility at the operating system level. And, really, it isn't much effort for an important piece of software (and a week or two sifting through documentation will only improve the end product, trust me).
And guess what: even the lowest-common-denominator is usually very useful and sufficient to meet the requirements for the software. People who whine otherwise are usually the eye-candy babies who demand using all the nifty Internet Explorer extensions to make dancing mouse trailers and other garbage (for example).
The only excusable applications are those written before truly portable APIs came around. For example, old UNIX apps written with Motif should be forgiven, because Qt, Java Swing, and other fairly recent APIs weren't available. But new applications? No excuse at all.
Re:They just can't win can they (Score:2)
I've got a box still running a 2.0 linux kernel, and two running 2.2 - and my vendors still support me. When they stop, I can support myself, because I have all of the tools necessary.
Why doesn't MS support it's customers? Even if that means they have to fix the damned problems with Windows 3.1.
They're sitting on 40 billion in cash. They can afford and should support the customers who stupidly gave them that money.