Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Microsoft: Closed source is more secure
Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus 2001-04-12

Redmond's security response chief warns the RSA Conference of the perils of open source.

Comments Mode:
Security under MS products VS. Linux, *BSD 2001-04-12
giard.pascal (at) teccart.qc (dot) ca [email concealed]
Now I know 2001-04-12
Anonymous
Crock of sh*t... 2001-04-12
Jim Powers
wow, that's a lot of spin 2001-04-13
wiggum
OpenBSD 2001-04-13
Carl Thomas
MS - Lipner Comments 2001-04-13
Nilanjan Chaks
RE: Microsoft: Closed source is more secure 2001-04-13
Kimico Myers
opensource less secure? 2001-04-13
osiris
Microsoft should get a clue. 2001-04-13
Reaperx1
He's low on credibility 2001-04-13
Ajay Shah
I don´t a gree that Open Source Software is "Boring and Expensive" 2001-04-13
Manuel
Wha?? 2001-04-13
bleezer (at) plz (dot) com [email concealed]
FUD 2001-04-13
x3co
Closed source more secure? Really? 2001-04-13
counter_counterinsurgency (at) nospam.hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
Is Microsoft code more secure than open alternatives? 2001-04-13
Larry Fahnoe <fahnoe (at) FahnoeTech (dot) com [email concealed]>
Open Souce security 2001-04-13
Charles E. Hill
Microsoft: Closed source is more secure FSVO secure 2001-04-13
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel (at) acm (dot) org [email concealed]> (2 replies)
In "Microsoft: Closed source is more secure", Kevin Poulsen quotes Steve Lipner

as saying "The vendor eyes in a security review tend to be dedicated, trained,

full time and paid," but Microsoft's track record for security problems suggests

otherwise. The open source community includes a number of people who take

pride in being the first to find an error, while at Microsoft QA is a cost center that

seems constrained and ineffectual at best.

Does Lipner take us for fools, or is he living in another universe?

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/191/5278#5278
Closed source burdened by "boring, expensive" QA 2001-04-16
counter_counterinsurgency (at) nospam.hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
Microsoft: Closed source is more secure FSVO secure 2001-04-17
bassethound2 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]
Amazing who __finds__ the holes in Windows 2001-04-13
Will
Going through the motions != Security 2001-04-13
topeka (at) catchen (dot) org [email concealed]
Closed source software is secure 2001-04-13
soumyac (at) bigfoot (dot) com [email concealed]
An observation 2001-04-13
Harry G
Which explains why... 2001-04-13
Con Zymaris, CEO Cybersource Pty. Ltd. Australia
MS product line the best proof against Steve Lipner's arguments. 2001-04-14
SM
nobody buys ms argument 2001-04-16
j lock <jlock (at) compooter (dot) net [email concealed]>
So lipner finds security boring, huh? 2001-04-16
KSAJ
Open vs. closed not necessarily it.... 2001-04-16
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
Open vs. closed not necessarily it.... 2001-04-16
Microsoft Defender (2 replies)
Open vs. closed not necessarily it.... 2001-04-18
Draconis
Open vs. closed not necessarily it.... 2001-04-18
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
Open vs. closed not necessarily it.... 2001-04-18
M$ Defender
I hope Mr Lipner reads this 2001-04-17
dirge
Security Vulnerability Open Source vs Closed Source 2001-04-17
Rod <snaketails (at) optushome.com (dot) au [email concealed]>
who gets cracked more? 2001-04-18
TauRine (1 replies)
who gets cracked more? 2001-04-18
M$ Defender (3 replies)
who gets cracked more? 2001-04-18
brian (1 replies)
who gets cracked more? 2001-04-18
M$ Defender
who gets cracked more? 2001-04-18
dirge
who gets cracked more? 2001-04-19
Bruce Garlock
His arguments contradict each other! 2001-04-19
nobody important
Closed Source products often contain obvious bugs 2001-04-19
A Reader
Interesting admission from Mr Lipner 2001-04-19
Iter







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus