Microsoft: Closed source is more secure

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.

Expand all | Post comment

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)

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

Review the MS Security bulletins. Note that most are

credited not to Microsoft's own QA staff, but by third

parties, who don't have access to the source to close

the hole before it's disseminated.

If this is what internal vetting fails to pick up, just

imagine the scale of the mistakes they succeed in picking

up. Who's code is insufficiently coded for security?

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/191/5280#5280

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