Microsoft Silently Backs Favorable Presentation at RSA 256
lildogie writes "Two researchers, from the Florida Institute of Technology and Boston-based Security Innovation Inc., 'surprised the audience at a computer-security convention last month with their finding that a version of Microsoft Windows was more secure than a competing Linux operating system' according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 'This week, the researchers released their finished report, and it included another surprise: Microsoft was funding the project all along.' When will they ever learn?"
Unsurprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unsurprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it that obvious? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Only those, who follow enough news to "know" M$ tactics.
Unfortunately, there are enough middle/upper management people who don't look into matters that closely and are simply "swayed" by knowing that M$ has market dominance -- and just tell themselves that "M$ wouldn't have it if their products sucked so badly, now would they?".
As long as there is enough ignorance or even indifference on (non-technical) management levels, M$ *will* see benefits from each time they're doing that.
(Besides, there is also the issue that you can't really go on to sue them for bad security if so many security companies openly tell of Microsoft's great security and the lack of security in competing OS's.).
The fact is, M$ OS's aren't "safe", and neither is a run-of-the-mill linux installation. Both need updates and security-conscious people administrating them to keep them shut. I've had people break into my (linux) servers once or twice , and managed to evict the attackers both times and plugged the holes they used that I had been unaware of before - but by now there are so many software packages that it's hard to keep track of security issues in all of them.
But, yes, despite those experiences, I'd still run a linux box over a windows box any day, because I think that in general my linux box is safer.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:3, Interesting)
for such brazen (and repeatedly brazen) self-
promotion. MSFT is a convicted (but yet to truly
be punished) monopolist corporation that cannot
be trusted to build a secure OS or Apps Suite,
let alone to "play fairly" in the marketplace.
But, hey folks, the 800 pound gorilla from Redmond
is not alone in these tactics. The pharmacutical
industry pulls the same kinds of tactics when it
comes to testing (and promoting) their drugs, and
they have (apparently) far more pull
"Someone else is also bad" is not a good excuse (Score:2)
Just let me note, regarding your drug company example, that medicines generally doesn't make it unhealthy for everyone in a corporation to use alternative drugs from another company... :-)
The rest is a bit off topic. I commented instead of using mod points.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:3, Insightful)
But, hey folks, the 800 pound gorilla from Redmond is not alone in these tactics. The pharmacutical industry pulls the same kinds of tactics when it comes to testing (and promoting) their drugs, and they have (apparently) far more pull with the government than MSFT does.
So this it the *everybody else does it* defense? Unless the appeal succeeds, Bernie Ebbers is going to jail, and Bill should be his cellmate. Microsoft is a convicted abusive monopolist and is held to higher standards than normal compa
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)
You instruct them to ask the questions that reveal the 10 features that favour your product A.
That's it. Simple as that. No lying required. This is the reason why you don't even bother to read a report that is financed by one of the product companies.
Now, the reasons why Security Innovation have chosen the two measures that you mention is quite obvious. It favours secret development over open development. Yet these factors do not have a direct relationship to how secure an operating system is. They are metrics that are at least one step removed. A direct metric would be for example, looking how often real systems are successfully attacked.
Who? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's got nothing to lose, because it's lost it all already.
Re:Who? (Score:2)
Yeah. When I hear about a study that raises Microsoft up above another product, I always find myself thinking, "Yeah, because they paid for it."
I'm not a Linux or Apple zealot by any means. I use the best tool for the job, be it Microsoft, Linux, Apple, etc.
But when I don't even check to see if Microsoft did pay for a positive study, I just assume it, Microsoft has lost all credibility for me, at least on studies.
Wait what? (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong Target (Score:2)
Some of us may care because we make our living as software developers, resellers, et al. We know how much competing with a giant means to our personal bottom line. We care passionately about F/OSS because it's our livelyhood. (Some may care passionately against F/OSS bacuase they see it as a threat -- go figure.)
It's that pointy-haired boss who's the target of these "studues", not
The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)
I like Active Directory and a few other Microsoft creations, and I even have an MCSE. Hell, Exchange has a good feature-set; if it would just stay up and be easier to manage it'd be a great product too.
What I can't abide is being told that IIS is superior to Apache, and that Windows is more secure than "Linux". They send out these teams of spin-doctors with big bankrolls and try and take over the world using FUD. It's total crap.
When do you see Linus doing this? Steve Jobs? Not very often. There are occasional comments, but nothing like this steady stream of trash that comes out of Redmond. I grow tired of it, and my reasons for disliking the company have never been more clear.
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think a comment along those lines is trolling, I suggest you take another look at the definition.
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:2, Insightful)
And before you jump at me saying "Well, duh, they are a business, and the whole point of a business is to make money", yes, I know that, and I still find it disgusting. There's a point where unethical behavior actually starts affecting peoples' lives.
It's the business practices (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, their products suck. But on its own, that wouldn't be a problem, because people would be free to choose the best product for the job. MS would be under the same commercial imperatives as anyone else: make good products, or die.
But their business practices suck too. Because of that, the market isn't free to pick the best products.
They pay people (individuals, dealers, companies, governments) to use their sucky products, by offering discounts and other incentives -- even giving them away if necessary. They pay competitors not to make competing products, by buying them off. They pay masses in marketing to make their products seem less sucky. They pay lawyers to find ways to prevent competitors making better products. They pay dealers and distributors not to bundle competitors' products. They pay lawmakers to prevent competitors being able to compete fairly. They pay training companies to ensure that there's more expertise for their products. They pay their own developers to break competing products in various underhand ways. They pay anything they can to support their products.
And so, ultimately, we all pay...
In short, it's their immoral and illegal business practices which make their dodgy products popular. Prevent those, and their products wouldn't be a problem.
Re:It's the business practices (Score:5, Interesting)
When the sales team is given a garbage product to push, they can not do it with integrity and morals.
The suckage of their business practices is in direct proportion to the suckage of their product offerings.
MS Word has been downhill since word 97. I remember MS Visual Studio 5 which had a Great help system. After 5 they said "screw the help, just use the MSDN CD." Something serious happened in microsoft about the time when the internet was getting big. They totally lost their minds.
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of their products are good.
Some of them suck.
All in all, their business practices are abhorrent. Intentionally introduced, easy to fix incompatibilities piss me off.
Releasing all this FuD when its not necessary. (They are still the marketing leaders in most areas).
The atrocious way they've dealt with some of the ex-partners (competitors). Like Stacker, or Corel, or Caldera.
I can't stand it, and that's why I won't recommend a Microsoft product, ever. There's always either an
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:3, Informative)
If you ignore security, stability and some flexibility
The first two are *critical* to a webserver, and rule out IIS in the first sentence.
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:2)
At this point, it's just to look cool on Slashdot. Don't forget there's a race here to get +5 Insightfuls.
Re:omfg.. What a fucking useless rant... (Score:2)
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)
My company isn't taking off as quickly as I'd hoped, but I'd rather fail and leave my conscience in tact and know that I did it the ethical/moral way. Our goal is to build mutual beneficial relationships with our customers, not to sell them shit they don't need.
Sales people push. Partners (what we consider ourselves) work to provide benefits. It's no harder to operate in a good manner than it is in a poor manner.
That being said, my first company failed (too green out of college), my second company is just running at break-even (it does provide some good community services though so it's good karma either way), and my third company is getting close to break-even.
I'd rather work for myself and make $20,000/year than work for (insert global corp here) and make $120,000/year. It's more rewarding and the stress isn't comparable. Most people don't realize that starting your own business is primarily difficult because it requires fiscal discipline and the ability to not be afraid of the umbilical (sp?) cord being cut from receiving a paycheck every 2 weeks or half month. In the end most people are 2 paychecks away from being broke anyway.
Employees are expensive but running a company with integrity is priceless!
Re:The *real* reason Microsoft sucks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nor is RMS, but lots of free software hackers work for corporations (for instance, good GCC work has been done by Cygnus and now by Red Hat). But it's important that we don't come away thinking that "Linux" is an operating system (it's a kernel) or that Linus Torvalds alone represents all of the work one finds on a GNU/Linux system. The result of many people's participation is found in a modern GNU/Linux system.
Should be from.... (Score:5, Funny)
from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
It was later learned that Microsoft "had complete financial control over all employees involved in the project."
Anyway, is Microsoft trying to develop a pattern here? Every time windows beats linux it's from a source microsoft paid.
Re:from the article (Score:2)
I t
Re:from the article (Score:2)
How do you define "security"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about limiting the avenues of attack.
I run Ubuntu, you cannot crack my machine with any worm because it does not have any ports open to you.
I can put that machine on a DSL connection and read
You believe that no matter how much care is put into designing an app, security holes will magically appear once enough people start using it.Nope. That's usually a sign of a "buffer overflow".Nice. You keep confusing software that crashes with security holes.
Whatever.And no mention of Browser Helper Objects of how IE runs with unreasonably high access rights.Well, you certainly can't argue with that "logic".
All I can do is to point out that all security issues are not the same.
#1. Remote exploit that gives root/admin rights.
#2. Remote exploit that gives non-root access.
#3. Local exploit that gives root/admin rights.
Way way way down the list is "Exploit that crashes the app". The worst you can get from that is a DoS attack.
But to you, all issues are the same. If FireFox crashes, that's just as bad as the sasser worm on Windows.
Sure, it may be impossible TODAY for someone to crack my Ubuntu desktop
Re:How do you define "security"? (Score:2)
I see a lot of "if" in there. (Score:5, Insightful)
If magical elves decided to hide bad code in Linux and if they had CVS access and if they wrote it right and if no one noticed
HOW is someone going to get that data into my OO.o document? Hmmmmmm?
Magic? I don't think so.
Why don't you skip the "if"s and start focusing on the "How"s?
Security doesn't rely upon "if". It relies upon "how".
It's not just Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's not just Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not just Microsoft (Score:2)
Here's why: The general public likes things that are easy to obtain. Microsoft, popular music, fast food, and TV programs may be mediocre, but you can get them just about anywhere. Better stuff may exist, but if it has to be hunted down via a three hour search, most people aren't going to b
This is the article (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is the article (Score:2)
Re:This is the article (Score:2, Funny)
also i wear a tinfoil hat.
Re:This is the article (Score:2)
Right, that may help. The waves emitted by the microwave and the cell phone will cancel out each other (negative interference) and so your brain is safe again. Don't forget to equip the other passengers with portable microwaves, too. My only concern is that the cell phone might not work correctly under these circumstances.
So predictable (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So predictable (Score:2)
Propaganda is always directed at specific target audience. In the purpose of such institutions as ADTI, there is no reason for common people should believe them. But the politicians, both administratives and lawmakers do, and that does count well.
Re:So predictable (Score:2)
They don't need to. This stuff is just fodder for metadata that ends up in marketing material for PHBs. You see it all the time; "Seven out of ten independant studies showed that black is white". It doesn't matter that anyone with a clue knows the research is paid for.
Just wait... (Score:2)
Transparent and Open? (Score:2, Insightful)
What a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the proof of the pudding should be in the eating: apply their methodology. Does it pan out for other Linux distributions/XP upgrades? If the methodology stands, it will be a great service to the debate.
It's just a damn shame the politics of the situation mean that probably won't happen.
ponder this... (Score:3, Interesting)
all MS has to do to make their OS more secure as part of their 'trustworthy computing' is to announce the service pack and what it fixes one day *after* releasing the said service pack as the study uses a metric called 'days of risk'. can't beat the resulting -ve 'days of risk' unless the competitors did some serious time travelling to issue the patch. sure seems that if you actually make early disclosures it counts against you. some trustworthiness.
Is it so difficult... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it so difficult... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their primary metric is "days since a vulnerability is disclosed to when a patch is released".
Microsoft doesn't officially disclose anything (aka "responsible disclosure") until all of their major customers have already been hit, and they have a fix ready.
Open-source software on the other hand has a tendency of being overly paranoid, and will release a security bulletin for every little thing as quickly as possible. This puts them at a natural disadvantage, using the above metric.
According to these "researchers", not letting your customers know that there's a vulnerability is preferred to letting them know as soon as possible. This sort of sounds like a good idea, until you factor in the fact that black hats will know pretty much immediately, word spreads quick.
This is "interesting"? I THINK NOT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now...
1) Microsoft waits until they actually have a fix or is forced to report/acknowledge an exploit when someone else makes an issue of it.
2) Microsoft doesn't report any other exploits that they know about and doesn't go auditing for potential issues either.
3) The Open Source community as a whole is rather paranoid compared to Microsoft when it comes to overall security so they report anything that might be a potential problem.
Given the above items, that isn't a terribly good metric for determining overall security, nor is determining how secure the OS is by the reported issues. Overall security is a measure of how many issues, how severe, how exploitable, and how well they get fixed. Microsoft consistently flunks in the overall issues (they have more than we do, we just don't find out about them until after the fact...), severity, and fixing arenas.
Combine this all with the facts that Microsoft maintained editorial AND financial control of the entire "study" and it all becomes a farce and worthy of the derision we're all heaping up on it.
It's worse than that... (Score:5, Insightful)
#2. They ONLY counted the days until Red Hat had a fix
So, a local exploit in a
WTF?!?
Or, rather, Microsoft can SIT on a vulnerability notification for YEARS and release the patch the SAME DAY they publicly admit the vulnerability and they will STILL get a better rating than the Apache vulnerability in the previous example.
There was NO research done for this "study". It is pure bullshit. Counting patches is MEANINGLESS when it comes to security.
By their "logic", MS-DOS 6.2 is even more secure than Win2003.
Re:It's worse than that... (Score:2, Informative)
MS-DOS is a small kernel with a simple single-tasking program loader, limited number of more-or-less independent programs that "do stuff", and very limited communication abilities.
Windows, on the other hand, is a colossal set of interdependent programs, libraries and ghawd-knows-what-else, that can interact with each other in so many ways, in parallel, and at such great speed that nobody can possibly claim to completely understand how it works.
Re:It's worse than that... (Score:2, Interesting)
By almost ANYBODY's log, MS-DOS 6.2 is more secure than many other OSes. It's certainly more secure than Linux, or OpenBSD, or any UNIX at all.
A default MS-DOS system has NO network ports opened.
The system must be accessed physically to intrude into it.
Everybody knows that once physical access has been reached, all bets are off. Very complex encrypted filesystem schemes must be implemented to make ANY OS more secure than any other, and
Re:Is it so difficult... (Score:2)
""It was evidence that Microsoft was doing better, and now the evidence is tainted," said Counterpane Internet Security founder Bruce Schneier, a longtime RSA Conference speaker. "The results might be accurate, but now nobody's going to care, because all they'll see is a bias that was undisclosed."
Have you read the "study"? Here it is! (Score:2)
Read it. Look at how they took the "default" settings EXCEPT where those settings would make Microsoft look too bad (firewall disabled by default).
Read it all. Then look at what they REALLY based their "finding on".
Nothing more than some other site's listing of security announcements/bug fixes.
To be honest... (Score:2)
What needs to be done is _not_ an independent review sponsored by MS, but a review by all parties not sponsored by anyone.
MS always use it FUD.
Why not get a panel from ALL current OS and do similar?
Tut.
We know why that will never happen.
BTW, did the guys involved have to pay the full wack on Windows server 2003 btw?
Not news! (Score:3, Funny)
Florida Tech./Security Innovation selling souls (Score:2)
He surely doesn't have to read it to understand how the system works...
-- Shameless plug for the Nuggets [mynuggets.net] mobile search engine.
Windows may be more secure than some distributions (Score:3, Insightful)
Pfft (Score:3, Funny)
They already did learn. (Score:5, Insightful)
When will they ever learn?
When will who learn? Microsoft? They already did. They learned that funding reasearch groups is a great way to portray themselfs as they see fit and at the say time spread FUD about linux and other competitors.
Duplicate the research and outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
So has anyone allready taken this to the test ?
As long as there is no counterevidence (besides the obvious evidence from everyday use of both OS's), why allready pass a judgement? (Ok, this -is- Slashdot, I'm not -too- new here)
Allthough I find it dubious, to say the least, to have MS funding this research ; I still think that they should at least try to reproduce the results , and investigate what might have been left out (on purpose) to skew the outcome.
Have you READ their study? (Score:4, Informative)
What "test"? The whole point is how their "methods" are flawed.Here's the "counterevidence":
Scenario: You are running a web site on Linux. All ports are blocked by the default firewall except port 80.
Is a local exploit in a
By their "methods", the
They counted the vulnerabilities (X).
They added together all the days between announcement of vulnerability and Red Hat releasing a patch (Y).
They divided Y by X to find the average time between vulnerability announcement and Red Hat releasing a patch.
They did the same for Win2003.
Then they announced that Win2003 was more secure because it had let time between public announcement and public patch.
That is all they based this "report" on.
Their methodology is fundamentally flawed. You can do the same arithmetic they did and get the same results, but that does not mean that their findings are valid.
When will they ever learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that many people who matter will see this paper, they are busy people they will read the headlines and the conclusions, they won't even notice that there is something about funding. These peole are IT directors and the like.
Yes: we geeks say that the report is a joke because of the way that it is funded; learn that the joke is on us since we dismiss this paper as irrelevant when it is opinion forming.
Loss of Credibility (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are going to derive your research from presupposed conclusions it helps to AT LEAST choose a plausible sounding conclusion.
As a genuine security researcher , I don't think anyone knowledgeable in the field believes that Microsoft has a more secure OS than a hardened version of Linux.
Speaking as an academic, it is somewh
Re:Loss of Credibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Right there is the flaw in your statement. You're correct in that no one in the field would believe that a Microsoft OS is more secure than a hardened version of Linux. On the same token though, any reputable person in the field would agree that a hardened version of Microsoft's OS is not any less secure than a hardened version of Linux.
Speaking as an academic, it is somewhat disappointing to see this kind of spin besmirch the ivory tower
Apples to Oranges (Score:3, Interesting)
Still a good move. (Score:5, Interesting)
But at the time they weren't too worried about the long term growing threat, they were worried about the pending case. Now the big picture nightmare is being realized on all fronts and they need to go down in flames shooting off ridiculous attacks/defenses that they paid for because the net result will probably be in the black, at least beyond the slashdotters, of keeping more people from moving to linux than they drive toward linux because those people found out that MS paid for the study and yada yada. Count on that MS reads the likes of Slashdot and give them a little benefit of the doubt -- not with their ethics, but with their business sense. In this case I think the ensuing flood of "when will they learn" posts will be overstated. I should note however that MSFT has had a pretty disappointing [yahoo.com] performance and that the public is catching onto the hole they're in, and not every investor is going to stay on the ship just because Microsoft is selling video games.
But then I think, I am a Debian addict and I am defending MS's business decisions, and then I think I've been up all night perfecting my porn site and I'm beginning to hallucinate. I don't know where I'm going with this... Back to the porn!
Re:Still a good move. (Score:2)
I wouldn't say we're a "flash in the pan". Slashdot readers include 14-year old script kiddies, yes, but also many people like corporate IT managers who make serious purchasing decisions, and consultants who give respected advice. Even if small in terms of percentage, the opinions of Slashdot readers are disproportionately important in the IT worl
Researchers... (Score:5, Insightful)
The conclusion has to be that selling IT snake oil is an even better bet than becoming an aromatherapist or an urban shaman. No-one is likely to be able to prove you wrong, and you can continue to be paid by your vendor of choice secure in the knowledge that most publications will not print anything that upsets their biggest advertisers, and that even if a few minority interests notice the connection between your conclusions and your paycheck, the wider world probably won't notice.
The system will only fall apart if academic institutions get together and pass some suitably tough rules on the ethics of product comparisons - and history suggests that that the first one under the new rules will be a study of the aerodynamics of different breeds of pigs.
The first flaw was in the late disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
Academia requires funding, and researchers are usually funded. Funding agencies always have a perspective (even when you're funded by the NIH or NSF or other federal agencies). The agreement that the researcher has intellectual control of the research process, data, and the right to publish is key, especially with commercial sponsors (e.g., MS, pharma companies).
These folks may well have had an agreement ensuring them that they could find what they found and freely report it. And if they reported it, others can appraise the quality of their methods. I haven't read the study, so I don't know if the comparison was fair. Did their support from MS include someone sending them specially-configured systems, for example?
But I do know that they should have known better than not to disclose the funding source in their first talk.
Imagine what would have happened if they did. (Score:3, Funny)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/212384_msf t linux17.html [nwsource.com]
Linux vs Windows Security
(a Microsoft production)
Thompson and Ford walk on onto the stage.
Thompson: "My name is Thompson and I love Microsoft."
Ford: "My name is Ford and I love Linux. Hey Thompson, how many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a light bulb?"
T: "I don't know, Ford. How many Microsoft programmers DOES it take to change a light bulb?"
F: "None. The
Go Microsoft! (Score:2, Interesting)
They're just spreading the word further, to people who may never known of alternatives. Anyone who's semi-competent can then clarify the situation.
Keep it up Microsoft. Remember, it's a case of when - not if. You're helping to bring that date closer =)
Get the real stats (Score:5, Informative)
Paid opinions are worth exactly nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux has been the choice of the leading edge for several years, it is well-established as the choice for the early adopter, and it's now starting to become a serious option for the mass market.
The mass market listens to the early adopters, the early adopters listen to the pioneers. That's the way it goes with technology, and that's why marketing only helps when products are otherwise equal.
Microsoft should work on the real problem - the low quality of their products, and the real gap between their outdated expensive proprietary software and the commodity alternatives - rather than try to influence the market with propaganda. Unless, of course, they have come to the realisation that they cannot fix the problems.
It will be newsworthy when a study finds that Microsoft has made a better product than the community, and when the study is both independent and accurate.
If Apple can do it, why can't you guys at Microsoft? It's just software... infinitely plastic, and you are so smart, so rich...
Nope. They won't do it. They just don't get it. They will continue to bitch and bluster and bluff until it's too late.
It's a shame. All that talent, all that money, and all they can do is pay people to lie.
Methodology...? (Score:5, Insightful)
And since they're claiming that this is a "Linux vs. Windows" research paper, the fact that they're looking at using the boxes as web servers makes it seem more like they're comparing Apache/PHP/MySQL to IIS/ASP/SQL...
I'm rather new to the Linux world, but isn't that like looking at the engine of a car, and saying the doors don't work?
This is kind of thing misses the point (Score:2)
Point 2: Linux is not an operating system. It's a kernel that various organizations build operating systems on. I haven't read the report, but if the authors include userland vulnerabilities, they're being completely dishonest. WRT to userland vulnerabilities, you have your choice of Linux based ope
What really makes me mad is... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if you get a sloppy distro (wont cite any names to avoid flames) and compare it to Windows, you can say that distro is more insecure than Windows. But you cant say "Linux is more insecure than Windows"!
If they really want to compare Linux to Windows, well... then lets compare the kernels, Linux X NT! Witch one is more secure? Has more bugs? Heh, that's something I'd like to see.
Made my day :) (Score:2)
Hahahahaha..."snort" stop it! You're killing me (holds gut in pain)..
I can always look forward to a good laugh from
This is important because.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Stories like this are just like SPAM, the reason they keep happening is because i
It matters not....... (Score:2)
A no-brainer for MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Blinded Me With Science (Score:2, Insightful)
After reading Slashdot for years (Score:3, Insightful)
When one of my roommates got a Dell recently, I took a look at his XP before connecting to the internet. A few clicks and the firewall was on. A few more clicks and his anti-virus software was up and running. After connecting to our LAN I downloaded Firefox, and for the past month and a half he has had no problems with any security issues on his machine. No, Windows is inherently not as secure as linux, but if you know what you are doing, you will be able to set up your Wintel box to be decently safe and hacker-free.
The downside is, of course, that Microsoft could do a lot more to make Windows more secure out of the box. But Linux (and the Linux community) has a long way to go before the average wal-sumer will feel comfortable using Linux machines, much less knowing how to run them.
Re:After reading Slashdot for years (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly the same thing that you do with a rootkit infected Unix system.
Also, the security of a system depends on the administrator. You are administering your friends system. Slight difference.
Oh, and did you turn off the RPC services?
Key part of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Thompson said he and Ford developed the methodology on their own and submitted a proposal to Microsoft last year. He declined to say how much Microsoft paid to fund the research, but he said the company didn't have a say in the methodology.
I'm surprised that this kind of research would get so much attention . . . reading between the lines, the research proposal was written to attract money from Microsoft. This implies an immediate conflict of interest . . . the research proposal and methodology were very possibly skewed in favor of Microsoft from the very beginning to garner Microsoft's favor and money.
This is like writing a research proposal on the effects of smoking to get money from Phillip Morris. Of course such a proposal won't be written is such a way as to build a link between smoking and cancer . . . it would likely be written to imply that the research may refute the link between smoking and cancer. Skew the proposal in favor of the benefactor and one is more likely to get money . . .
The whole process needs to be more transparent . . and all of the facts need to be issued before presenting . . . otherwise this is just irresponsible research.
Money vs Ideology (Score:2, Flamebait)
Also, what no one ever mentions when research favors OSS is ideological bias. What's especially interesting about the second thing is that it should be obvious that it exists, because we are neck deep in it here.
Survival time real world measure of security (Score:2)
Multiple bandwidth tests (56k-1.5mbdsl) trying to update the OS. Utilizing vendor (Dell/HP/Gateway) XP installs/Linux installs (not fully patched, but patched a *little*) In combination with hardened installations i
Our firm reviewed the report pre-publication... (Score:5, Informative)
...and found it lacking in several respects.
Some background. I work as an industry analyst for a major technology research firm you've heard of. We were asked to review the methodology and findings of the report prior to its publication---i.e., at the beginning of March.
Things I commented on, among others:
In short, the authors' claims that the methodology was "transparent" and "reproducible" are unfounded, since there is no way to inspect the data underlying their conclusions. I predicted they'd be heavily flamed by the open source crowd, and that they ought to make some changes to the report before they went public. They didn't, other than to acknowledge (but not address) a few of the methodological issues we raised.
It's really too bad, since I really liked their emphasis on "role-based" analysis; that is, look at specific "stack" for a particular use case, for example web serving. The methdology paper, in case you haven't read it, is worthwhile reading. But all that good work is sullied since we can't see the data.
yeah but how many people see the code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Server benefited in part from Microsoft's reduction of security vulnerabilities in the latest version of the software -- with 52 reported vulnerabilities for the year, compared with 132 vulnerabilities for the Linux version, according to the report. The researchers also calculated an average of about 31 days of risk for the Windows software in 2004, compared with an average of about 70 days of risk for the Linux version.
Yeah but how many people get to review M$ code and discover new vulnerabilities? Did they account for that in their bug count methodology?
In other news ... (Score:2)
MS numbers to tumble (Score:2, Interesting)
So now MS will have 30 days exposure for every security breach.
I look forward to a new report from the same guys next year showing these results.
Oh, I forgot, they won't be able to get the funding from MS.
Bah (Score:2)
This study and our analysis were funded under a research contract from Microsoft. As part of the agreement, we have complete editorial control over all research and analysis presented in this report. We stand behind our methodology and execution of that methodology to determine objective results that will be useful to customers and security practitioners.
Do they really expect us to buy an excuse that thin? Yes, a report of this type is academically viable, but only if you maintain neutral
Re:Would somebody please refute the numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Would somebody please refute the numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really take as gospel truth everything you believe about Linux, without demanding proof, why are you worrying about whatever trick makes the Windows numbers look good?
Re:Would somebody please refute the numbers (Score:2, Insightful)
They neglected to mention that they were funded by Microsoft, which betrayed the faith I had put in their honesty. I do not have time to
The bottom line.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problems with the study:
1. The researchers were dealing with vendor-supplied patches of RHEL3.0 and Windows 2003 Server only. If a Linux vulnerability was released, and then patched by the author on the same day, but Red Had didn't release an update until 7 days later, this would be counted as a week. (Which may or may not be the correct way to view it - it's an 'apples-to-apples' comparison of a distinct 'apples-to-oranges' problem.)
2. the researchers didn't take into account the severity of the vulnerabilities. A local DOS vulnerability was given the same weight as one that offered remote administrative priveleges. The RHEL vulnerabilities were typically not as severe as the Windows ones.
3. the researchers didn't take into account whether the vulnerabilities were theoretical or not. A vulnerability that was theoretical was given the same weight as one which was proven real. All of the vulnerabilities in Windows were real, while the same is not true of RHEL.
4. The researchers didn't take into account the fact that RHEL has *much* more software included with it than Windows Server 2003. More software == more vulnerabilities.
5. The study dealt with "public disclosures" - security researchers typically work with the vendors, giving them some period of time to produce a fix before releasing the advisory; again, as the "vendor" in OSS is the program author, and not Red Hat, MS has a distinct advantage in "number of days to fix", as they can have a fix ready before the advisory is released, while Red Hat usually cannot. (This ties back into point #1 above.)
Re:The bottom line.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And it is this one that I think should stick in anyone's craw. Clearly