, 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]
giard.pascal (at) teccart.qc (dot) ca [email concealed]
Closed source more secure? Really?
2001-04-13
counter_counterinsurgency (at) nospam.hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
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]>
Larry Fahnoe <fahnoe (at) FahnoeTech (dot) com [email concealed]>
Microsoft: Closed source is more secure FSVO secure
2001-04-13
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel (at) acm (dot) org [email concealed]> (2 replies)
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]
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]
bassethound2 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]
Open vs. closed not necessarily it....
2001-04-16
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
Open vs. closed not necessarily it....
2001-04-16
Microsoft Defender (2 replies)
Microsoft Defender (2 replies)
Open vs. closed not necessarily it....
2001-04-18
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
Security Vulnerability Open Source vs Closed Source
2001-04-17
Rod <snaketails (at) optushome.com (dot) au [email concealed]>
Rod <snaketails (at) optushome.com (dot) au [email concealed]>
who gets cracked more?
2001-04-18
TauRine (1 replies)
TauRine (1 replies)
Yes, M$ does not have the greatest track record in security - however, from a logical business standpoint, Microsoft has the most to gain and the least to lose by producing secure products. Eventually, they will figure this out. Also, try not to assume all M$ customers are "sheep" - there are legitimate reasons for working with Microsoft products besides being "duped."
I have developed and used software on both sides of the aisle and there is no vendor that I am aware of that has produced 100% secure software. Being the most popular means more people are affected by your bugs and thus gives everyone the impression that you are one with the most problems. This is not always true. Like most things in life - its a matter of perspective. I am currently programming in .NET and let me tell you know - M$ is getting VERY serious about security. Give them time - trust in the free enterprise system, and if you still don't like M$ - don't buy it. No one is forcing you.
Would you feel better if Sun had M$'s market share? Oracle? Someone has to be #1 - be happy its someone already under scrutiny. The enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't every time....
Forgive MY ranting. My keyboard runneth over....
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/191/5334#5334