Microsoft Opens Source to China 482
angst7 writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has signed an agreement which would allow the Chinese government access to Windows source code. This is part of an effort to curb the shift toward Linux in China due to that country's concerns regarding the security of closed source software." Reader NZheretic points out that less than a year ago, Jim Allchin swore under oath that disclosing the Windows operating system source code could damage national security.
That's shares source with China, (Score:5, Informative)
Not even sharing, just showing really (Score:5, Insightful)
"Governments signing up to the security program will be able to build systems that offer the high levels of security required for national security, Microsoft has said. However, government users will not be allowed to make modifications to the code or compile the source code into Windows programs themselves, according to Microsoft."
Yeah, real 'open'.
Re:Not even sharing, just showing really (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not even sharing, just showing really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not even sharing, just showing really (Score:4, Interesting)
"Governments signing up to the security program will be able to build systems that offer the high levels of security required for national security, Microsoft has said. However, government users will not be allowed to make modifications to the code or compile the source code into Windows programs themselves, according to Microsoft."
Yeah, real 'open'.
Hmmm - So MS took their windows source, compiled it, modified the code to remove the backdoors, and sent it to China. To ensure that China aren't then going to modify the source, they make sure the source is not buildable - Have in the agreement that they don't give China some important part of the building process.
So China search through the code, find no backdoors (because they have been removed), but runs the original version of the code with the backdoors still in it, because they are not able to build fresh sources.
Seems like a good deal to me.
Re:Not even sharing, just showing really (Score:4, Insightful)
MS can give them all the source code they want. They just have to 'leave out' the part that is the security risk. Which seems to be the point of this whole deal.
It only takes a few lines of code to inject a nasty spy bug/flaw into the system. And if China can't even build their own binaries, then MS can insert many flaws into the OS they give to them.
Re:That's shares source with China, (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said it before, we're about to discover that "open source" was a mistake, the battle of the words is important, and we should give it a lot more thought.
I realize that "Free Software" is not much better, but for those of use speaking Real Languages[tm], which is making the distinction between beer and speech clear, abandoning "Open Source" is, I think, a good idea.
Re:That's shares source with China, (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ lies (under oath) about security problems with OpenSource, due to its "open" nature.
M$ has FAR more security problems than OpenSource.
Countries (often those who hack into M$ computers) want the source opened, or else, so M$ complies....
M$ won't open their source to the public, who needs knowledge and a defense against those attacks.
Ergo, M$ opens the source to the wrong people, instead of the right ones. This is the difference between the "black hats" and the "white hats."
OpenSource realizes that BOTH can see their source, so the "white hats" patch the holes in anticipation of problems. M$ does not....
Re:That's shares source with China, (Score:3, Funny)
Uh, it'll be open regardless (Score:3)
I personally think this is hilarious. I spit coffee all over when I read it on news.com this morning It's hard to ask to be taken seriously when your proprietary flagship software product is so shoddy and untrustworthy that you have to share the source to get foreign countries to trust it (and compete with other open source projects).
-B
So Microsoft is (Score:5, Funny)
So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
and US chinese relations haven't been all that bad actually.
Re:So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:3, Funny)
But you never know!
Re:So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:4, Funny)
If it is, who gets the axe?
Re:So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Either treason or perjury has occured. Long-hair Linux hipies would go to jail for such action, but bribe^H^H^H^H^Hcampain fund producers like MS will not suffer at all. Welcome to America...
Re:So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:5, Funny)
--Aumaden
When profit is at stake... (Score:3, Insightful)
The almighty dollar means more than anything to a corporation after all. Laws, security, morals - whatever - have nothing to do with how a corporation acts, unless it will affect profit.
Re:So now the Chinese have it!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Damage national security, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damage national security, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
And it was so hard for them to make viruses before (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And it was so hard for them to make viruses bef (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually some versions of code red did have code to detect the language that a site's web pages were in and trashed the site if it wasn't in Chineese. Then a few days after this was discovered a second verison of the same worm appeared which did the opposite. Code Red hit at the time that the US spy plane was forced down in China.
There are plenty of examples of politically motivated hacking, the Palestinians and Israelis have been having an ongoing proxy war for some time. However almost all the events appear to be the work of independent agents working on their own rather than being coordinated cyber-warfare.
The only example of state sponsored cyberwarfare I am aware of is the attacks on Usenet by Hasan B-) Mutlu and Serdar Argic who roboposted thousands of anti-armenian propaganda messages. Mutlu and Argic were both pseudonyms used by an officer of thr turkish intelligence service which was concerned that reports on the Turkish massacre of Armenians during world war I were circulating on Usenet and damaging the image of Turkey abroad at a time when the post USSR CIS was fragmenting into racial warfare. So they roboposted claims of a bogus masacre of turks by armenians repeatedly in order to drown out and discredit the genuine claims that the turks massacred the armenians.
Re:And it was so hard for them to make viruses bef (Score:3, Insightful)
YOUR FACTS ARE INCOORECT!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wouldn't want it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't want it (Score:2)
Between Moscow and Beijing, I imagine that money in the right places could see the code compromised.
What good does this do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What good does this do (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the article summary. They're worried about security issues, e.g. Government spyware, that old, wonderful conspiracy theory. Remember that variable nsa_key? =P
Microsoft is just trying to compete with Linux. It can half-way adopt some of Linux's practices (shared source) and combine that with Microsoft's reputation and necessity (office, etc.) to keep themselves in the market.
MS doesn't need to go all the way to stay on top.
Yours truly,
A Linux Fan
Re:What good does this do (Score:5, Interesting)
Ultimately, if China cannot reproduce the binaries from the source, they will probably have to dismiss this as a marketting stunt.
Yes, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If not -- then how do they know that the code they are looking at is the same version that goes into the build on their desktops?
Re:Yes, but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Remember the article about the compiler who was specially adapted to introduce backdoor in login, which was not visible in the source of the compiler, cause the compiler added it to itself when it was self compiling?
Re:Yes, but.... (Score:5, Funny)
-Ben
Do they really think it will stay secure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just curiously... if all the linux users care about is open source, wouldn't the functionality of windows compared to linux IN SOME ASPECTS cause a flux of *nix users to use windows if they could fiddle with it as they liked? I mean besides server issues, windows is the way to go if your computer is really just a PC.
Re:Do they really think it will stay secure? (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as your comments about Linux users go, that's rediculous. We use Linux because it's more stable, versatile, customizable, etc. Not "just" because it's open-source. Every time I'm forced to use an MS-Windows machine, I'm disgusted and infuriated by how limiting it is... you're only allowed to do what MS says you should want to do.
If you've never used Unix (enough to understand the concepts beneath it), you shouldn't criticize it or it's users.
Re:Do they really think it will stay secure? (Score:3, Interesting)
Before that would happen, Windows would have to be:
a) Free software and
b) No longer controlled by Microsoft.
That simply isn't going to happen, ever. Microsoft have no incentive to let go of Windows, and until that happens Linux will be as important as it always was, not because it's more stable or tweakable or whatever, but because it's owned by everybody.
Re:Do they really think it will stay secure? (Score:3, Interesting)
But how much time does it take to compile the kernel
Bash, GNU tools, KDE or Gnome, all shared librairies, etc etc?
Not flaming or anything, just a question...
That IS a little creepy (Score:5, Insightful)
When he swore under oath that opening the source for Windows would be a threat to national security, I completely agreed. The number of security holes in Windows with the source remaining closed was bad enough. Now China gets to see the source, and we don't? Wouldn't that put them at an advantage over US companies that can't audit the code for security holes?
Re:That IS a little creepy (Score:3, Funny)
Treason? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Treason? (Score:5, Funny)
It's probably a huge fine amounting to about
Re:Treason? (Score:2)
Re:Treason? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Treason? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, only a few minutes of income for Microsoft.
Re:Treason? (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine what would happen when the next hole revealed by a Slammer-type bug can't be patched 'cause Microsoft's not around.
Exactly the same thing that would happen with them around!
Worst job ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Worst job ever. (Score:5, Funny)
"Look, you bring up Tianamen Square ONE MORE TIME and you'll be reading the code for kernel32.dll the rest of your life!"
Best job ever (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone in China is smiling sagely over this one.
Microsoft policy... (Score:5, Informative)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Purjury (Score:5, Interesting)
So, does this open the door for a purjury investigation? I would think that a number of companies would look upon this with great interest.
Re:Purjury (Score:2)
Re:Purjury (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Purjury (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why would this be perjury? (Score:2)
Because the entire argument for not giving competition and other people parts of the source is that "it would damage national security".
Yet... now they're willing to let a 3rd party see it.. namely China.
Re:Why would this be perjury? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, Universities do in fact have access (Score:3, Interesting)
If they had, then there would be copies of the Windows source floating around for a while now. Also, we would have heard some major eruptions from the Dept of Homeland Security.
Sorry, but Universities do have access to the source. I have a friend who worked on a project that was granted access. You have to apply to MS, they have to like the project, you sign NDAs and agree to keep lab locked, CDs secured, etc. MS gets the right to incorporate your research, you are allowed to publish, move to a different University and take the license with you. It's real. The source probably is out there somewhere, you just don't run in l33t enough circles
security (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure they won't open *that* part of the code.... (*cough* *cough* secret backdoors *cough* *cough*)
China is less of a threat than the "unamericans" (Score:2)
I think China as a whole follows more rules than the loose nuts in the universities and companies in the US.
They will swear under oath too.
S
ha! (Score:5, Funny)
This must be a covert attempt from Microsoft to destroy China by weakening its national security!
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it would compromise security if the vagrant open-source developers saw the Win32 source code. China, on the other hand, certainly isn't a threat.
Just replace "national security" with "microsoft security", and things make sense.
--
Release of source... (Score:4, Insightful)
They often releases it to schools with various NDA's, as well as businesses under various agreements, but that's usually for educational or development reasons.
The deal with China seems to be a combination of PR and sales, rather than education and development.
frob.
China can't be legally attacked (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess there's no in-between... (Score:2)
Microsoft would never think of a no-charge license for *some* of the source with a non-disclosure agreement, and keep the national-security sensitive stuff to themselves?
Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
An oh-so-typical I-hate-M$ post (Score:5, Funny)
Which crime is being committed? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Which crime is being committed? (Score:5, Funny)
but can they compile and run? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wondering how this would work... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if China and other governments will be tobuilding their own binaries and install CD's...?
New Microsoft Business Plan (Score:2, Funny)
2. Compromise National Security.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Let me get this straight .... (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight .... (Score:2)
Ok.. forget this post already!
China will probably sign an NDA ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Cynic's view (Score:5, Interesting)
Trade secrets: Beyond a doubt there are piles of things in the source code that could be considered trade secrets. One way to protect trade secrets is to make certain that they are widely available but not legally available. In the cynic's view (i.e. mine) M$ wants the code to be leaked by China.
If the code is illegally leaked, it is very easy for M$ to accuse other products (future Linux apps?) of using illegally acquired trade secrets. How can the authors, living in countries around the world, prove that none of them have ever seen illegally leaked material?
Based on what I have read about the development of the clone of the IBM BIOS, it appears that the burden of proof de facto lies on the defendant to show that they are not using trade secrets illegally.
This may give M$ a very big gun to point at any colloboratively developed code that they don't care for.
Re:Cynic's view (Score:5, Insightful)
You think anyone really wants to slop through IE code to replace the Opera rendering engine? The original request to make competing companies on par with the MS development. So for example, if you simply cannot get the performance you want out of your TCP/IP stack, you wade through MS's to find their undocumented kernel calls. Or, it lets you learn how to hook your own WM into the system instead of the Explorer WM, but only after you finish trying their published methods. It's on a case-by-case basis, and its certainly harder to read than their documentation, no matter how sparse.
The only thing I'd want to know about their code is examples of published APIs. Even then, I've not run into too many problems in the latest platforms. Microsoft is not an big innovator IMO, they simply tightly integrate their ever-growing OS functions for personal computer "simplicity of management".
mug
Not quite right (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't quite right. Trade secrets are just that - secrets. They are secrets that the company elects to protect by not publishing. However, if those secrets are discovered by someone else, or somehow otherwise made public, you have just lost any rights you may have had. The alternative is to patent them, in which case you gain limited protection (time frame, licensing fees, ect) but have just told the entire world how to do it, step by step. And not every country recognizes the same patent law. There have been recent medical cases where S American countries have broken pharma patents to provide cheap, effective medicine to it's people.
Trade Secrets (Score:3, Interesting)
DVD-CSS aside, that's not how it's supposed to work. In theory the difference between trade secret and patent is that with a patent, the Government enforces your exclusive right to use the development in return for you telling everyone how it's done. With trade secret, you take the chance of independent discovery. So if an organization chooses to hide a development as a trade secret and the secret gets out, they've got no recourse other than to recover damages for breach of confidentiality. (That only works with those who have a duty of confidentiality in the first place, of course.) The genie doesn't go back in the bottle.
Of course, that's theory.
Still, MS would have a decidedly difficult time going after Tridge for "trade secret violation" based on a speculation that he found out about some SMB operation from leaked Chinese source.
What's good for Microsoft ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I've always felt that "cyberwar" scenarios were rather overblown attempts at giving backroom geeks frontline roles, the military certainly takes it seriously; one well-received military paper a few years ago warned that America's IT defenses were on a par with the ability of Task Force Smith (whose ignominious retreat from Korean forces showed how woefully unprepared America was for the Korean conflict).
As we know, China has been touted as the first great cyberwar enemy; allegedly, China does have a "hacker brigade" tasked with disrupting American networks and computer systems in times of war, to rectify the strategic imbalance between the two nations. Now, Microsoft plans to open to a strategic rival of the U.S. the internal code that will power the Navy's upcoming CVN-77 aircraft carrier [fcw.com], plus other "smart ships."
This raises an interesting question for the Administration: although, as Vann H. Van Diepen (Director of the Office of Chemical, Biological, and Missile Nonproliferation) told Congress, export controls to China are not enforced in "areas where the technology is widely available as commodity items ... such as low-level computers," the source code to a mission-critical operating system used by military C4 systems is certainly not a "commodity item," nor is it "widely available." Will the White House put national security over Microsoft's profits? Les Kinsolving, call your office!
Future News (Score:5, Funny)
"Microsoft Source Code leaked world-wide"
"Microsoft discontinues entire software division and focuses full force on their Mouse and Keyboard division"
Think Price (Score:3, Funny)
1- China Gets Source
2- China uses Message Queing to break or break into asian corps, and small countries which have little security
3- China now has massive espionage in 2nd/3rd world countries, and united states corporate subsidiaries in those countries
4- China invests heavily in US stock market
5- Profit!
At least that is what an Evil empire would do...
Year ago... (Score:2)
Or big liar.
US national security, from the software point of view, was already compromised on all systems running WindowsOS and assosiated backoffice and client side products. The only thing required in this case is to install software and pray for timely releases of security patches, providing MS considers flaws moderate to critical.
However, this is pretty significant move and raises few questions:
Perhaps none of these but there must be a very good reason.
ObHeadlineQuip (Score:2)
Export Restrictions (Score:2, Interesting)
Know that there are export restrictions for crypto software and the like and I'm sure MS isn't sharing this type of material.
But, given the number of times MS software has been shown to be quite a good host for viruses etc. shouldn't there be someone at the Commerce Department reviewing MS's shared code policy.
Basically, I'm seeing MS sharing source code with probable enemies of the US and it makes me nervous.
What's China gonna do with this source code.
Well, they could certainly look for exploits, "No need to try to hack the darn binaries anymore, we got the source Bob."
After identifying the exploits they could EASILY turn around and use them against computers in the US.
For example, what about all those Navy ships out there that are being fitted with MS software? Do you really want the ships Phalenx (spelling?) system networked to and sharing network assets with MS OS's that could be compromised by a sneaky Chinese spy onboard with a floppy full of viruses?
What makes this even worse is that MS is handing over this material to the bad guys and I'll bet you that a majority of our military cannot get their hands on it. Nor can the majority of the FBI personel or the CIA or the NSA I would bet.
This is similar to handing over nuclear technology to the North Koreans so that they can build a power plant. See where that get us?
As much as I dislike saying it, if everybody on our side cannot see the source code, then nobody should be allowed to see it.
Legal ickyness! (Score:2)
Not just China (Score:3, Funny)
<sarcasm> You'll notice that there are no brown-skinned folks on that list, so rest assured that dangerous information will not fall into the hands of terrorists. </sarcasm>
So how long? (Score:3, Interesting)
Letter to my senator (Score:3, Interesting)
=====
Despite the fact that Microsoft's software is widely known to contain many security vulnerabilities, the U.S. government and military heavily rely on Microsoft's Windows operating system to peform vital government functions.
It is relatively easy to find security vulnerabilities in software when you have access to the source code of that software (source code is what defines software; people read and write source code).
In light of this fact, Microsoft has claimed that sharing information about its software with competitors could damage national security.
More important than any competitor to Microsoft, China now has the source code to Microsoft's Windows operating system.
Shouldn't the U.S. government move in the direction of open software that is not ultimately controlled by any one entity? As a concerned and informed citizen, I would wholeheartedly suggest Senator Warner support open source software and vote against bills like the DMCA that stifle the progress of open source software.
Interesting but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way that I can see a government feeling warm and fuzzy about this would be if they were allowed to examine all 500 million lines of code and to compile it themselves and distribute that.
Even doing this they will have to do the same thing to every update and every proprietary piece of software that they run on government computers.
I think that Linux is still the way to go for China.
ah, but you see (Score:5, Funny)
You see, being exposed to Windows source code gives programmers a killer headache, and after having seen it, they'll never be able to write a secure piece of code themselves.
Freedom of Information Act? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean-- it comes down to the core issue of privacy-- the gov't would have to prove that it has no unfair advantage that could impede my 4th Amendment rights vis a vis the M$ software.
Or-- it could prove to be collusion between a private entity and the state, also illegal in the US, and I would think most of Europe...
NSA Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
"It is no exaggeration to say that the national security is also implicated by the efforts of hackers to break into computing networks," Allchin testified. "Computers, including many running Windows operating systems, are used throughout the United States Department of Defense and by the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere."
Then why isn't the military running NSA Linux? Because they don't like OpenOffice? Because they can't see Sorenson video in Quicktime? Because Opera borks their MSN page?
Re:NSA Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Security-enhanced Linux is only a research prototype that is intended to demonstrate mandatory controls in a modern operating system like Linux and thus is very unlikely to meet any interesting definition of secure system.
and
Security-enhanced Linux is not part of any currently approved version of Linux and has no special or additional approval for government use over any other version of Linux.
So maybe NSA Linux isn't the answer, the NSA thing just seemed obvious since we're talking about government use. However, it almost sounds like they might have an approved version of Linux available. Wonder if they're experimenting with that...
While we're being paranoid.... (Score:3, Interesting)
We all know that there is really nothing new in code. Part of what makes an open application clean in the sense of free from copyright issues is not the absence of certain ideas or particular implementations of them, but the absence of a means for those ideas to have been lifted entirely from proprietary versions of the same ideas. Microsoft has always protected their code and this is actually a Good Thing for "clean room" OOS developers coming up with the same solutions as M$ codemonkeys.
Now, if Microsoft could point to Asia and say "our crown jewels made their way into Linux because of our ill-advised opening of Windows in Asia wink wink" do you think a sympathetic judge somewhere might be bri...er...convinced to slap an injunction on the further distribution of OOS software developed after the date of Windows source release to China? And even if they (M$ and the Chinese) aren't actually thinking along those lines right now, do you think they (M$) will hesitate a New York minute to take such action if the opportunity presents itself?
So you see my Prince, perhaps the binaries are not the issue. We all know what the issue is for M$, don't we.
Signed,
Nicolo Machiaveli
All the source (Score:3, Insightful)
This won't help them detect intentional back doors (Score:5, Informative)
While I can see how this will help China discover unintentional backdoors, this won't help them against intentional backdoors.
There was an old hack which Ken Thompson used to give himself access to all Unix systems, as a proof-of-concept of why you shouldn't trust source code. He didn't modify the Unix source code. Nor did he modify the C compiler used to generate the Unix binaries. He modified the C compiler used to compile the C compiler. Full source code access wouldn't help you see the exploit.
Details are at [wbglinks.net]n ed /thompson.html.
http://www.wbglinks.net/pages/reads/hacksexplai
China doesn't have the rights to compile the source code they get. Even if they do (and I'm sure they will, if it's of any use to them) they won't be able to verify that the code is free of intentional backdoors-- because presumably it requires M$'s compiler. Even if they get access to the compiler source code (and I don't think they do) they can't verify that it doesn't have a back door.
If I were China I'd be afraid that the US government has hidden an exploit in Windows. That may seem paranoid, but security folks are supposed to be a little paranoid. I wouldn't trust Windows, source code or not.
Come to think of it, I wouldn't trust the American-designed processor, BIOS, disk controllers, RAM, keyboard controller, chip design tools, etc.
Re:maybe... (Score:2, Funny)
Cool, now we can all see the tcp/ip stack
Re:Ah... (Score:3, Informative)
They released the source to them.
There's no need to reverse engineer it...