BugTraq
Microsoft and Security Jun 25 2004 06:53PM
http-equiv@excite.com (1 malware com) (1 replies)
Re: Microsoft and Security Jun 26 2004 08:21AM
Radoslav DejanoviÄ? (radoslav dejanovic opsus hr) (1 replies)
Re: Microsoft and Security Jun 28 2004 12:41PM
Justin Wheeler (jwheeler datademons com) (1 replies)
RE: Microsoft and Security Jul 04 2004 09:06PM
Alun Jones (alun texis com) (3 replies)
Re: Microsoft and Security Jul 06 2004 12:33AM
Jason Coombs (jasonc science org)
Re: Microsoft and Security Jul 05 2004 05:58PM
Justin Wheeler (jwheeler datademons com) (1 replies)
RE: Microsoft and Security Jul 05 2004 11:10PM
Alun Jones (alun texis com) (2 replies)
Re: Microsoft and Security Jul 09 2004 03:21PM
Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (1 replies)
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:10:36 PDT, Alun Jones <alun (at) texis (dot) com [email concealed]> said:

> Microsoft employs people who care about producing good software. We're all
> indoctrinated from day one that our software is used by everyone - our
> parents, our neighbours, our children... It's perhaps a unique situation
> compared to producers of the other OSs, where the users are usually limited
> to particular sections of the community.

Yes, parts of Microsoft *are* trying to do better, but there's a limit to
what any single programmer can achieve without some serious buy-in from
high-level project leaders.

Unfortunately, there's obviously a disconnect at *some* level, because they
keep shipping software that's broken in very fundemental and recognized ways
(the concept of "zoned", ActiveX, and other such stuff we've known for *YEARS*
is a bad security idea). There's just too much lock-in to the concept that
since your software is used by everyone, it has to have all sorts of bells
and whistles to make life easier for everyone...

... including black hats.

Be honest now - how many times in their career has the average Microsoft
programmer been indoctrinated with "Be Featureful!", and how many times have
they heard "Be security-minded paranoids!"? Remember to count double/triple
scores for what they heard the first 6-9 months they were there and
absorbed the culture.

Proof that Microsoft still needs to re-educate some high-level people: the
fact that there was *any* thought given to making SP2 only install on
"legal" copies and locking out pirated copies. The number of people running
pirated copies that actually will buy legit ones just to install SP2 is quite
likely tiny - but the number of people running pirated ones that would end
up remaining insecure is much larger. This one *should* have been a no-brainer:

"We screwed up, our software sucked security-wise, and to make up for it,
we're giving out a freebie update for *everybody* and swallowing the profits
from the 23 people who would otherwise go legit just to install SP2".

> I really don't think you'll find much truck with the idea that Microsoft
> employees are happy to leave their mother's home machine, or those of the
> general public, open to infection.

Much would be explained by the thesis that the person(s) causing the
disconnect mentioned above don't have mothers... ;)

[ reply ]
Re: Microsoft and Security Jul 12 2004 11:47AM
Charles Otstot (charles otstot ncmail net) (1 replies)
Re: Microsoft and Security Jul 17 2004 12:47AM
Lucas Holt (luke foolishgames com)
RE: Microsoft and Security Jul 06 2004 07:04PM
David F. Skoll (dfs roaringpenguin com) (1 replies)
Re: Microsoft and Security Jul 07 2004 12:57PM
Adam Shostack (adam homeport org)
RE: Microsoft and Security Jul 05 2004 07:40AM
Radoslav Dejanovic (radoslav dejanovic opsus hr)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus