Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Security

BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security 289

Posted by timothy from the these-are-not-the-holes-you're-looking-for dept.
securitas writes "In the second of two parts, the BBC's Stephen Cole of the technology show Click Online interviews Bill Gates about Windows, viruses, security, spam, 'trustworthy computing', Longhorn and being anti-competitive. Sample quote: 'Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are. That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.' Streaming media in Real format is also available. [Video: Broadband | Narrowband] You can read the first half about the 'digital lifestyle' in Part 1: Bill Gates plots a Windows future. Here is the Slashdot discussion of the first part of the interview."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security More

BBC Bill Gates Interview Part 2: Security

Comments Filter:

  • It takes one to know one! (Score:5, Funny)

    by smccto ( 667454 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:23AM (#11538591)

    "Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there"

    And he can?

    It takes one to know one!

  • Security? Ha! (Score:5, Funny)

    by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:23AM (#11538592) Journal
    Bill Gates talking about secuity is like the corner whore talking about the evils of premarital sex.

    • Re:Security? Ha! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Scoria ( 264473 ) <{slashmail} {at} {initialized.org}> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:30AM (#11538632) Homepage
      Bill Gates talking about secuity is like the corner whore talking about the evils of premarital sex.

      I suppose that Linux users really are virgins, then. :-)

      • Re:Security? Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) *
        I suppose that Linux users really are virgins, then.

        No although Linux Security is better and more manageable then windows security. It is not like a Linux system was hacked. I know my system was back when I first started using Linux on a college T1 line, back in the mid 90s. They used a buffer overflow threw the print server to gain access to my system. Shortly after that I got wize and closed all unneeded services. (The stupid college MIS Department forbid people installing firewalls at the time). But
        • Although you are certainly right that even nowadays standard Linux distributions are far to open to attacks I still think there's a huge difference in the security approach of Linux and Windows.

          While Unix type systems where designed for multiuser access from the start, Dos and Windows where designed for single user systems.

          True that Unix was not designed with security in mind (you would have to jumpe on the RSX/VMS bandwaggon if you wanted something "really" secure at that time) it is far easier to mainta

      • We don't get screwed over.

    • Re:Security? Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by srjames ( 849628 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:03AM (#11538740) Homepage
      Unless I missed something he didn't once say that Windows was currently secure, or that it has been in the past.

      What he did say was "we can always do better" and "There is a lot more to do."

      He also went on to say that Longhorn should be more secure.

      Since none of you actually think about anybody but yourselfs in terms of what people want, let me explain it to you.

      Most people (see: Users, Windows), don't want to give up usability for security. I currently use Linux, and have for years. I'm pissed off about the recent local root exploits and thought about switching to a BSD (namely OpenBSD), for security. But, after talking to a good friend of mine decided that I didn't want to compromise some of the usability of Linux for the security of *BSD.

      Sure Windows sucks for a lot of reasons, but there's obviously more reasons that people are still using it.

      It's the same reason that people drive cars with automatic tranmissions. A manual transmission has a number of benefits, but people just don't want the hassle.

      Windows is prone to a lot of problems due to the default "administrator" account. But do you really think people want to log in to it to install software? Do you think they actually understand the difference? I doubt it.

      • Re:Security? Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:16AM (#11538774)
        Windows is prone to a lot of problems due to the default "administrator" account.

        Once you've seen a child having to become adminstrator to play a Microsoft game, you quickly realise just how serious Microsoft are about security and usability.

        • Re:Security? Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ymgve ( 457563 )
          (Was written before I realized the comment talked about a Microsoft game. My point still stands - it's the Game Publisher Microsoft that's at fault, not the Operating System Developer Microsoft.)

          In Microsoft's defence, this isn't their fault. It is perfectly possible to run games under a restricted user account, if you give up one feature.

          Copy protection.

          The reason nearly every game needs administrator access is that the game publishers' "nifty" protection tricks need to hook into the more advanced featu
          • My point still stands - it's the Game Publisher Microsoft that's at fault, not the Operating System Developer Microsoft.

            But the game publisher and the OS developer are part of the Microsoft whose head is being interviewed and is talking about a commitment to security.

            The reason nearly every game needs administrator access is that the game publishers' "nifty" protection tricks need to hook into the more advanced features of the CD-ROM drivers.

            Actually, in the case I was rememberring (Dangerous Creature

          • Re:Security? Ha! (Score:4, Informative)

            by Insightfill ( 554828 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @11:29AM (#11540300) Homepage
            Actually, as an ISV, if you want to put the shiny "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on your application, you have to pass a few Microsoft-administered tests.

            Some criteria:

            1) When app installs, all file and registry changes are contained in app directories and reg keys, unless such changes constitute system upgrades (MDAC, etc.) Start menu, etc. excluded.

            2) App is fully usable under "user" level account (no write-backs to protected dirs, or HKLM registry).

            3) App is fully usable under "fast user switching"

            4) App cleanly fully uninstalls.

            Actually, the full list is much longer, but the point is that MS gives brownie points to the dev. firms that can make apps run under "user" permissions. My guess is the game firms don't care about that level of certification, but for corporate-level apps, it makes all the difference. If you pass all of those tests, you can generally be assured of running under Citrix, Terminal Server, REALLY "locked down" desktops, etc.

            • "Designed for XP" (Score:3, Informative)

              by WebCowboy ( 196209 )
              Actually, as an ISV, if you want to put the shiny "Designed for Windows XP" sticker on your application, you have to pass a few Microsoft-administered tests.

              Some criteria:               [...]

              I've admittedly not looked very hard for the "designed for XP" logo, but that might explain why getting 3rd party software which truly meets that designation is still nearly like finding hen's teeth.

              1) Isn't as large a problem as it used to be, but a good amount of software (especially "free as in beer" stuff you get on the 'net

  • Fixed (Score:4, Funny)

    by kai.chan ( 795863 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:27AM (#11538608)
    "Certainly you can never underestimate children out there who can easily take advantage of the big flaws in our code."

  • Billy's "todo" list (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kadmos ( 793363 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:28AM (#11538613)
    I wonder if Billy would ever tell us something isn't a "top priority"? I can just imagine it:
    "Yeah, stability, we aren't really keen on that right at the moment, actually that's way down the list."

    Thanks Bill, but with an inbox full of virus I get the feeling your "top priority" isn't as "top" as we would like.
    • "Yeah, stability, we aren't really keen on that right at the moment, actually that's way down the list."

      I've noticed. On old versions of Windows, you can turn on sharing and share a directory. You can set passwords for the directories. It works at home just fine to keep the kids out of my download collection.

      The wife got an XP box. I can turn on sharing and share a directory. Somehow I can't find anyplace to set a password for read or write privilages. It looks like security has taken a step down.
    • Chairman Bill is doing the interview to fulfill the first item on his TODO list which is to distract the public.

      Why? Only he can say for sure, but possible reasons could be:

  • Good quote about Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

    by millwall ( 622730 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:30AM (#11538630)
    I like the way he sums up the Microsoft corporation and it's company culture:

    "Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are."

  • Translation of Bill's answers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OwlWhacker ( 758974 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:31AM (#11538633) Journal
    Q: "did you underestimate the value of security?"

    A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:

    I'm not going to answer that. I mean, come on, we all know that Windows wasn't designed with security in mind. So, I tell you what, I'm going to turn your negative into a positive, like a good salesman.

    Here, for a start, I'll get you to focus on the nasty people out there that are exploiting Microsoft software - they're the bad guys, ok, not us!

    Next, I'll tell you about auto-update, and that millions of people are using it. You don't have to worry because Windows updates itself. It takes away the hassle, right? And doesn't it make you 'feel' safer?

    And of course, Microsoft has marketed the fact that security is its business. Even if Microsoft software isn't secure, we like to give that impression.

    Q: "Nevertheless, a lot of our viewers still say to us: 'Microsoft didn't take that threat seriously enough and we are having problems.'"

    A: [translated from Billspeak to reality]:

    Ok, I don't want to answer that either, as it makes us look bad - and how can I refute something that's a fact?

    Instead, I'll get you to focus (yet again) on the positive fact that Microsoft makes it easy to sit back and do nothing, letting Windows auto-update itself. Remember, Microsoft software is used because it's easy to use (not because it works).

    ...

    I couldn't be bothered to read any further.

  • Do we even need interviews ? (Score:3, Funny)

    by jaiyen ( 821972 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:33AM (#11538640)
    I thought we could get everything we needed to know just from analysing his doodles [slashdot.org]!

  • Sorry Bill but you're full of shit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wiggys ( 621350 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:33AM (#11538641)
    "Microsoft Security" is an oxymoron.

    If they cared about security (remember them saying that Windows XP was the most secure operating system ever?) they would have shipped it with the firewall on by default and most services off by default.

    Why oh why did they think it was a good idea to have an RPC server on by default when there's probably less than 1% of users who would use the feature?

    How many insecurities has Internet Explorer had since it was launched with XP? I lost count. Even now, there are still holes in there wide enough to drive a truck through but they are not patched. Microsoft want to keep things quiet until they get around to fixing the bugs, and they only fix the bugs when they see the problem being exploited in the wild.

    And, thanks to Microsoft integrating the Internet Exploder engine so tightly into their OS, if a bug affects IE then it probably also affects Outlook, Outlook Express, MS Help and gawd knows what else.

    This is security?

    Ha!
    • If they cared about security (remember them saying that Windows XP was the most secure operating system ever?) they would have shipped it with the firewall on by default and most services off by default.
      In case you haven't noticed, it is now.
      • Read my post very carefully. I was talking about when XP was first shipped.

        We are now on Service Pack 2 and only now is there a half-way decent firewall on by default. How long did that take, three and a half years or so?

      • The firewall was on by default even in the first release of Windows XP *if* you told XP during setup you were a DSL/Cable customer. If you told XP you were connecting through a LAN, it didn't turn on the firewall (assuming that the LAN administrator already had a good one running, apparently.)
  • This 2-parter from BBC was about as exciting as watching a lawn-bowling match among seniors.

    The only challenging question was around the Euro case and Billy completely dodged the question as expected.

    Surely Bill often agrees to interviews with stipulations concerning what questions can be asked in advance - lame, but that's what you get with power. I find it odd that the BBC gets a 2-part interview with Gates and the topic of free software isn't brought up at all. Perhaps Bill is afraid to let slip another

    • Alas, the BBC really does show "lawn-bowling match among seniors" as top-flight sports coverage, because they can no longer afford the rights to anything decent.
      • Alas, the BBC really does show "lawn-bowling match among seniors" as top-flight sports coverage, because they can no longer afford the rights to anything decent.

        They've been showing stuff like that for years, long before they lost the rights to all those top-rank sports.

        (Channel 4- state-owned, but not part of the BBC- before they got the rights to show cricket, which they've since lost- used to show obscure sports, like Kabaddi (weird Indian thing) and, uh... American Football).

        Personally, I'm glad
        • Channel 4- state-owned, but not part of the BBC- before they got the rights to show cricket, which they've since lost- used to show obscure sports, like Kabaddi (weird Indian thing) and, uh... American Football).
          Kabbadi rocks, it's a cross between British bulldogs and Rugby (without a ball). And don't forget the sumo wrestling - C4s coverage of that was excellent, with explanations of the rules and a bit of historical & cultural background. Not just "Ohh, look - a fatty!".
        1. Alas, the BBC really does show "lawn-bowling match among seniors" as top-flight sports coverage, because they can no longer afford the rights to anything decent.

        What they export these days seems to be high quality. Even the crude old stuff was entertaining. That said, the list of good shows is fairly short on this end of the pond (USA) unless you include HBO's shows and everyone has to pay for that.

  • But where's the beef? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ladybugfi ( 110420 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:35AM (#11538651)
    OK, "security is top priority". As a security professional I think it's good that they've woken up.

    However, I'd really like to know what are they going to DO about it, apart from the traditional "we'll train our programmers". This is a key question especially considering that they have millions of code lines written before security was any kind of priority.

    I predict no radical changes to the number of discovered Microsoft software security flaws in the short term.
    • Well, they're compiling everything now with that new compiler that supposedly prevents/eliminates buffer overflow errors. (I believe all of Windows XP SP2 was compiled with this compiler.) So that will help quite a bit.

      As for other types of security problems, I don't know enough to say.

  • advertising your weakness (Score:5, Funny)

    by rich42 ( 633659 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:37AM (#11538656) Homepage
    Ford: 'Quality is Job 1' Qwest: 'The Spirit of Service' Microsoft: 'trustworthy computing'

  • Trust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alext ( 29323 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @07:44AM (#11538681)
    That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.

    An illuminating quote to choose because it is a complete non sequitur. And perhaps this isn't that obvious to everybody, even in sceptical /. land.

    In reality, there is no requirement for Microsoft to trust the software on my machine in order for me to trust it. The two relationships are quite distinct. I may choose to trust software that Microsoft has never heard of. Conversely, I may distrust software that MS has endorsed.

    The "trustworthy computing" soundbite has to be this vague because to pin down who is trusting whom to do what would immediately give the game away. The game is, of course, to encourage users to give up control of their PCs.
    • "Trustworthy" computing is DRM i.e. give control of your computer to Billy Gates.

      Isn't it logical? How could someone hack into someone elses computer when they don't have any control over their own computer?

  • Good ideas implemted incroectly. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:13AM (#11538767)
    The problem with microsoft security is not what they are doing but more how they are doing it. Security needs to be #1 in design. Then you build features on top of that (Without breaking security). For example some application want to run as administrator even if they don't need too (Like word perfect spell check) I can understand installing applications as administrator but administrator should not be allowed to run these application. Windows need a redesign for high security not plugging the holes in the existing version. Expect there will be holes in your OS but make it to minimize the dammage. Windows is like Setting up a Linux Apache Server where the user access it runs on is Root not Nobody. So if someone breaks into Apache then they get this limited access where they could at worse mess up and steel data from the website. But with the windows settings all services are under administrator when someone breaks in they have full access to the system.
    • > Security needs to be #1 in design

      Uou mean like Unix was? Or more correctly wasn't. In fact Dennis Ritchie wrote about UNIX: "It was not designed from the start to be secure. It was designed with the necessary characteristics to make security serviceable."

      And of course, this from the same people who brought us the C language which makes writing code to buffer overrun a virtue of simplicity leading to the number one cause of vulnerabilities today.

      As for Windows services, not all execute with Administ
  • I wonder if MS has fully sized up the impact of the bad press and user response they *will* get when the first exploit that uses trusted computing emerges.

    It *will* happen and it *will* be a cataclysm for MS.

  • Pilgrims Progress Approach Vs Infect,Scan,Remove (Score:5, Informative)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:24AM (#11538816) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft's desktop security issues stem from its reliance on the Antivirus industries "Infect-Scan-Remove" approach.

    In comparison, right from the outset, open source desktop platforms and applications have relied almost wholly on closing the infectable vectors, the exploited vulnerabilities used by malware, as quickly as possible.

    Read the following Usenet thread from 2000 that covers the argument in detail [google.com]. David Harley and Robert Moir are two Anitvirus industry leaders. It also includes the prediction that Microsoft would eventually get into the antivirus industry.

    If you have a spare hour, listen to Dr Dobbs' technetcast [ddj.com]:

    Dr. Blaine Burnham, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA), gives an overview of current encryption and security technologies and outlines possible strategies for future defense. 9th USENIX Security Symposium, Keynote MP3 [2000-10-09] (57min) [ddj.com]

  • Slashdot Interview!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by redGiraffe ( 189625 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:28AM (#11538829) Homepage
    Hey

    Can't we organize a Slashdot interview of BG? (titter :)

  • Click Online (Score:3, Informative)

    by jb.hl.com ( 782137 ) <joe@[ ]-baldwin.net ['joe' in gap]> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @08:39AM (#11538871) Homepage Journal
    Maybe off topic but may as well say: Click Online is a very Microsoft centric TV programme which is shown on BBC World internationally and on BBC News 24 in the UK. It tends to be very dumbed down and barely scratches the surface on a lot of subjects. I remember one show where they were discussing distributed computing, and had a cluster of Windows 9x boxes (!) all of which duly blue-screened. Ahh, memories. If only the BBC actually did a serious tech show :(
    • This is indeed a shame. And doubly-so, as there certianly is (or at least was) the understanding at the BBC to really communicate technology issues.

      In the 1980s, the BBC's shows on programming and computer science (produced in association with the Open University) were partly responsible for a whole generation of British I.T. workers and enthusiasts. The public effectively had free access to undergraduate level (or higher) course materials, right on their TV... albeit at some unholy time in the morning.
  • Hehe, Cole asked Bill about "longhaul" about 3 times and Bill didn't get it. You can see Cole smile just as the camera pulls away.
  • Interviewer: "It is a tricky area though. Digital rights management. Are you sure that you are not worried that it could trip you up?"

    Trojaned windows media files anyone? ;-)

  • Some reality distortion here.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @09:45AM (#11539299) Homepage Journal
    From the article:
    Stephen Cole:

    Are you a victim perhaps of your own success? Being the biggest, you are always going to be under attack.

    Bill Gates:

    And we're always able to do the best R&D, the best innovation, get the best partnerships.

    Certainly our position is one that people envy.

    First of all, the interviewer asked about the problems of being the biggest, whereas Gates went on to ramble on their being the best. What the heck was the point in that?

    Secondly, if they truly were the best, they wouldn't have all those security problems, now would they?

    This is my ongoing number one gripe about Microsoft: they cannot admit their mistakes. Though every OS has security issues, MS is practically the only one that keeps lying about it. Technical quality aside, I'll rather deal with honest people and honest businesses.

  • 'Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are. That's why we made trustworthy computing the top priority.'

    I trust my computer just fine; thank you very much.

    Now if you, your company, Disney, the MPAA & RIAA etc. don't trust my computer that's really not my fucking problem. Doncha think?

    Yes, I am aware that you sayd trustworthy and no trusted computing. Nevertheless, a faint, cold fear thrills through

  • "Bill Gates PLOTS a Windows future"

    Lessee now, first I put a ton of money into some Senators' pockets...

    Then I get them to declare all the Linux freaks "Communists" and "enemy combatants" and get them all shipped to Gitmo...

    Then I accuse Larry Ellison of financing terrorist groups...

    Then I give a few million more dollars to some charity to make me above criticism...

    Then...

    Profit!!!

  • "Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are."

    Unfortunately for him it applies to Gates...

  • Seriously, someone needs to get Bill a hobby now that he doesn't run the company day to day and is only yhe Grand High Ayatollah of Software Architecture. There literally is not one single solitary word that comes from his mouth that I can accept at face value and whenever he mentions such and such aspect of computing that needs and deserves MS's attention I automatically translate that to "Fuck, Burn and Kill".

    And I am a Microsoft stockholder and wish them only the best - stockprice-wise. Let's face facts

  • Doesn't he mean "overestimate?" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spaceman40 ( 565797 ) <(gro.mca) (ta) (sknilb)> on Tuesday February 01, 2005 @01:46PM (#11542038) Homepage Journal
    "Certainly you can never underestimate the level of malicious people out there who are going to try to take advantage of whatever things there are." - Mr. Gates

    If you can "never underestimate" said level, it drops to zero... I think he means that you can never OVERESTIMATE the level - which means that no matter how many people you think will try to break your stuff, there will always be a couple more, or their skill will always be a little greater.

    If he honestly thinks that the level of malicious crackers in the world is so low as to be unable to underestimate it, he shouldn't be in the computing business (yes, yes, I know - he shouldn't be in it at all, but whatever).

    If he means level like "stoop to their level"-type level, well, perhaps, but you don't have to be "evil" to be good at breaking things...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close