Re: Article: Gates memo calls for security focus
From: Walter Dnes (waltdnes@waltdnes.org)Date: 01/21/02
- Previous message: tomwilliamz: "Re: workstation attacks vs. server attacks"
- In reply to: Wolfgang Schelongowski: "Re: Article: Gates memo calls for security focus"
- Next in thread: David Mohring: "Pig iron [Was: Article: Gates memo calls for security focus]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 02:55:02 +0000 (UTC)
On 19 Jan 2002 19:19:36 +0100, Wolfgang Schelongowski, <spamtrap@xivic.prima.de> wrote:
> Two problems:
> 1) Security is not an add-on like Internet. They'll have to junk
> Win95/98/...
They've already done so, and WinME is receiving minimal support.
> and completely rewrite the WinNT/... .
The main problem with XP is the same problem that Redhat faces.
Setting the out-of-the-box-defaults to something reasonably safe. That
can be done without radically altering the product. E.g. don't turn on
the indexing option in IIS by default. My former boss complained about
his W2K machine being a bit slow one day. We looked thourougly at a lot
of options in the settings. His W2K *DESKTOP* was running a whole slew
of server daemons (SMTP, etc). Turning them off produced a noticable
speed up. Fortunately, we're behind a corporate firewall at work. But
this same machine, hooked up to an "always on" broadband residential
connection would've been easy pickings for script kiddies.
> 2) What Gates said implies a U-turn in the _roots_ of the company's
> philosophy.
That's *ALREADY* happened. Microsoft noticed that when Office XP was
intoduced, their biggest competition was... Microsoft. I.e. 60% of
Office users weren't at Office2000. They were still running Office97 or
Office95 or even Office version 4.x (from the Windows 3.1 days). Bill
Gates and Microsoft already know that customers are no longer flocking
to upgrade for "features". So "features" are getting lower priority not
because Bill Gates had a divine vision, but for the down-to-earth reason
that they no longer help sell MS products.
Microsoft is *ALREADY* working on abandoning *SELLING* software, and
is trying to corral everybody into .NET. Microsoft is an amoral
corporation. They'll do whatever they think is necessary to sell more
product/service. If they have to produce secure software, they'll do
so. Not because of any "corporate vision", but because that's what they
have to do to make money. You may argue that their programmers are too
incompetent to do it right, and many people will believe you. But MS
will at least try, and they'll *EVENTUALLY* get it right.
-- Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> If you had purchased $1000 of @home stock in 1999, today you would have $1.30. If you had purchased $1000 of beer in 1999, today you would still have $59 in empty cans.
- Next message: phn@icke-reklam.ipsec.nu: "Re: Bootable secure hard disk erazor?"
- Previous message: tomwilliamz: "Re: workstation attacks vs. server attacks"
- In reply to: Wolfgang Schelongowski: "Re: Article: Gates memo calls for security focus"
- Next in thread: David Mohring: "Pig iron [Was: Article: Gates memo calls for security focus]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
