![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![Security Security](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/security_64.png)
Microsoft Security Whitepaper 269
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft last week published a document on its Web site that describes how the company manages security on its own 300,000 node corporate network. The document is basically a dry discussion of IT risk management strategy, with lots of references to 'asset classes' and 'stakeholders,' and about five, nearly identical 'cycle of life' type diagrams showing how one risk management strategy leads to the next and so on, in a never-ending process. However, the document does open a window on how the biggest, richest software company in the world does security: from the deployment of 65,000 smart cards (let's see, at $50 a piece, that comes to....?), to MS's admission that 'there is a medium to high probability that within the next year, a successful attack will occur that could compromise the High Value and/or Highest Value data class.' According to the document, that includes things such as source code or human resources data."
is it ALL white? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:is it ALL white? (Score:5, Funny)
No, I believe it comes triple-thickness, extra soft unscented rolls.
ROFLMAO! (Score:2)
Re:is it ALL white? (Score:5, Funny)
Let the jokes begin! (Score:2)
Here they come...
Seriously, what is a "whitepaper"? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Microsoft Security Whitepaper"
Seriously, what is a "whitepaper"? This is not a troll. I have no idea what it is. Is it an article? I know what a "paper" is; what is the significance of it being white? Are there blackpapers?
Oh Great Slashdot Oracle, I, your humble follower, bow before you, please hear my question.
What is the difference between the kind of ideas that are in a whitepaper, and the kind of ideas that are in a paper? Are the whitepaper ideas whiter? When you are having white ideas d
Re:Seriously, what is a "whitepaper"? (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, it's an official report from a company/government meant to be released to the customers/public.
they (Score:5, Funny)
Good to see (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good to see (Score:2, Insightful)
But security through obscurity is alive and well at Microsoft. Tell me, when you select "store password using reversible encryption" in Active Directory, what algorithm is used to (reversibly) encrypt the user passwords? Where are the published specifications for PPTP? For MS-RDP? Obscurity goes hand-in-hand with closed source.
Note that, especially for
No Problem (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like somone needs to switch to Mozilla to avoid these annoying pop-ups!
Re:No Problem (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No Problem (Score:2)
Re:No Problem (Score:2)
Hmm, one out of two... Opera's toolbars are fully customizable, and of course Opera itself is skinnable.
But the free version does still have ads. Think of it as an opportunity to see if it's worth the $30 or whatever they charge these days... you might be surprised. (Or not).
Re:No Problem (Score:2)
Smart cards $50??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where does the $50 figure come from? I have two of them in my wallet (AE and Fleet Fusion) and two readers (useless on a mac) that retail for $29.99 a pop that I got for free being that I was an "early adopter". So where does that $50 really come from? And yes, I read the story, I just want to have a better handle on why someone supposedly "in the know" would trow out a figure like that for a quantity purchase of 65,000.
Re:Smart cards $50??? (Score:5, Interesting)
On a different but related subject, I think that three factor authentication will become the universal norm...a good thing me thinks. If anyone has seen the new military ID's, they are also CACs for login, med, etc. Very cool once they (EDS) gets things to speed up a bit.
Re:Smart cards $50??? (Score:5, Interesting)
"OTG estimated that at a price range of approximately $55-75 per user, including labor for deployment and tool development as well as hardware such as cards and readers, Smart Cards were an inexpensive way to significantly strengthen corporate security."
So evidently $55-75 per user is a reasonable amount for them to pay for each user inclusive of hardware and software development.
To be honest it sounds a lot to roll that out to 65,000 users, but when you consider that this cost is tiny compared to what those guys get paid, the actual investment across the workforce is negligible. I mean if you can afford to pay 65,000 employees, you can afford to spend $55+ on each of them. And considering that a network instrusion might be the outcome of not doing it (See Valve for more information) it's incredibly cheap.
Re:Smart cards $50??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, the implicit statement's invalid (that buying 65,000 x $n is wasteful).
Microsoft has, what, $40 billion in cash floating around? I work for a company that is lucky to have $40 million in cash floating around - does that make 65 smart cards wasteful? If your company has $4m, are 6.5 smart cards wasteful? If you have under a half a million in readily available assets, should you not use smart cards at all?
It's a simple scale thing. Microsoft is stupidly large when compared to most other companies. 65,000 of anything sounds like a big number, and it is. Still, relative to the size of their business, it's bordering on frugal, not wasteful.
See, I have so much Karma I can even occasionally support Microsoft on something.
Re:Smart cards $50??? (Score:2)
and $50 * 65000 is around $3,250,000. but I'll guess a deployment like that costs around 10x the cost of the [?Java-based?] cards.
-- Multics
Re:Smart cards $50??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where does the $50 figure come from?
I can't answer that, but I can tell you what smart cards cost.
The costs depend heavily on both volume and capabilities. At the low end, there are cards available in large volumes for substantially less than $1. At the high end, programmable cards with both contact and RF capability, lots of fancy printing, etc., plus some loaded and personalized applications can be up to $10, in large volumes, and over $50 each in developer quantities.
So, in general, $50 each for 65,000 cards is ludicrous.
However, in this case the figure may actually be accurate. The numbers I mention apply to "stock" cards, where the R&D investment is spread over hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of cards.
Microsoft, however, may very well have used Windows for Smart Cards cards, from their brief flirtation with the smart card business. These cards are based on a 32-bit processor from Atmel, which is itself significantly more expensive than many of the more common cores. In addition, the cards run a custom smart card operating system developed by Microsoft. They're high-end programmable cards that interpret (what else?) Visual Basic bytecodes (eeeeewww).
So the cost of these specialized, low-volume chips, plus the cost of developing a smart card operating system, building tools to construct, load and manage applications, implementing the card applications, implementing the workstation and server software, implementing the key management systems, issuance systems, etc... Yeah, $3.25M is not only believable, it's impossibly low.
I suspect that the $50 per card figure is accurate, but that it includes more than just the cost of the cards.
Re:Smart cards $50??? (Score:2)
Ha! That's like saying they use SourceSafe for source control.
Parent is well informed. (Score:2)
Re:Smart cards $50??? (Score:2)
Swillden, we were talking a couple of days ago about TCPA. I was wondering if you saw the Slashdot story: Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router [slashdot.org], and if you caught that Slashdot got the story wrong? These routers don't block viruses, what they really do is deny anyone a connection unless you are running TCPA. The "virus blocking" spin comes in that they could then use TCPA to attest that you are running specific anti-virus software. If you carefully read their press release [bizreport.com] you can s
They probably aren't using "Smartcards" (Score:2)
Microsoft, like most other large companies, almost certainly uses something like RSA's SecurID token or some challenge/response thing, and those things are quite a bit more expensive. The reason why companies use them is because they work with any web browser or ssh
World Domination? (Score:4, Funny)
What about World Domination plans? Are those Highest Value data class? Or Really Highest Value?
I have a friend who now works for Apple, and they had training on the various classifications of stuff - I forget what any of the acronyms were, but they were pretty oddly named. I fully expected a bunch of troopers dressed in titanium and perfectly polished clear plastic(hopefully Ti in the, uh, right places) to come storming through the door to erase my brain after being told of such things.
Oh crap- maybe they DID!
Re:World Domination? (Score:2)
Poor old closed-source paradigm (Score:2, Funny)
Poor Microsoft, still stuck in the old paradigm of closed-source software. Oh sure, it's been a profitable paradigm for them, but those days will gradually erode as the trend toward Free and Open Source continues over the years ahead. Meanwhile Micros
Keep laughing, moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's concerns regarding source code are likely less about preventing someone from SEEING it (you can pay them money to look at code) and more about modifiying it.
Open Source is a wonderful thing -- but it isn't a silver bullet. Sophisticated programmers with access to any source repository, open or closed can create all sorts of havoc.
Uh, riiight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uh, riiight... (Score:2)
Finding bufffer overflows has little to do with scanning through source code, it has more to do with feeding bad data and watching if a program crashes, coredumps or otherwise fails.
Many of the exploits aren't just buffer overflows (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite (Score:3, Informative)
The difference between open source and closed source is that due to open source being so open the developers on it tend to trust no one. Closed source projects tend to be a little more lax because the closed nature of the project makes it easy to get sloppy.
Re:Not quite (Score:2)
Sounds like how a drunk driver rationalizes his actions.
The fact that "nothing serious" happened is luck.
Re:Not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
Luck plays out in closed source, when the consumer never finds out about the holes until the " new version fix" is ready for shipping.
Re:Keep laughing, moron. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and I bet the Debian developers were shaking in their boots that someone was going to steal the Debian source code, right?
Microsoft's concerns regarding source code are likely less about preventing someone from SEEING it (you can pay them money to look at code) and more about modifiying it.
Microsoft has said again and again that they consider the closed source nature of their code itself highly valuable.
Re:Keep laughing, moron. (Score:2)
I wasn't saying open source is a silver bullet, so that part of your message was off-topic as well. All I was saying is that there is one inherent advantage to the open source model, an
Horrors indeed. (Score:5, Funny)
Have you considered that the masses should actually be protected from Microsoft's source code ? You wouldn't want your neighbours to become stark raving lunatics after having been confronted with the lovecraftian abomination that is Hungarian Notation, would you ?
Trust me my friend, there exist Code Man Was Not Mean to Read. Microsoft is dutifully protecting reality as we know it. We should be thankful.
Re:Poor old closed-source paradigm (Score:2)
Sounds about right (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, no... (Score:2)
It's security is as strong as white tissue paper.
Twisting a quote... (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, even without all the security holes this would happen! Let me re-define some terms to my liking.
A successful attack: Linux on more machines.
High Value data class: Microsoft's stock price.
Highest Value data class: Bill's bank account.
See, if you twist a quote out of context, it can mean whatever you want!
Uh, they ALREADY have had a compromise in security (Score:2)
Yes, you missed an article... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/27/180
There's tons of others. It made a big splash on the tech news circles- and then was apparently promptly forgotten for some unknown reason. Strictly speaking, MS has already had one of their critical breaches they talk about and they couldn't have instituted a scheme like they're talking about in the timeframe from when this was discovered to now (i.e. It pretty much had to be in place or largely so because of the scope and scale of the effort in question...).
"Highest value" stuff isn't (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, that's a risk to Microsoft's customers, so that may not be considered as critical.
Re:"Highest value" stuff isn't (Score:2)
Re:"Highest value" stuff isn't (Score:2)
However, I'd be surprised if they would be dumb enough to keep such a key on any system that is physically attached to any network.
Re:"Highest value" stuff isn't (Score:2)
The Emperor's New Clothes, by George Orwell (Score:3, Insightful)
To make a long story short, this document is an "Emperor's New Clothes"-style piece of PHB-speak/business-speak/market-speak/PR-speak that nobody really understands, but every business IT strategist that reads it will pretend that its meaning is very profound, like the emperor pretends to see his nonexistant clothes, to avoid appearing stupid to colleagues.
Microsoft. Where do you want to go today?
What I want to know (Score:4, Funny)
Easy (Score:5, Funny)
The sell them to themselves as a loss. Therefore using them as a tax deduction twice - once for the loss and once for the cost......and if the loss is great enough they might even make a profit!
This is the same company (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that perjury?
Re:This is the same company (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that perjury?
Or treason?
Re:This is the same company (Score:2)
Well, either that or treason.
(Except that the legal standard for treason is quite a bit higher than that in this country, otherwise some folks from Loral-Hughes would probably be doing jail time now over certain launcher technologies. Hmm, maybe there's something in the PATRIOT Act we can throw at Microsoft?)
Re:This is the same company (Score:2)
No, terrorism.
Re:This is the same company (Score:2)
Nah, let's call it treason instead.
Awww man... (Score:2)
That, or switch to trying to take over their Mr. Coffee instead of their source code.
A new low, even for Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
If they did, they would probaly notice that the paper describes a methodology of security management, including dealing with operating system & application security issues.
Information security is more reliant on process than using x product or y product. If you have established methods to classify what needs protection, identify vulnerabilities & intrusions and rectify the situation, you have a secure IT shop.
All about the cycles eh? (Score:3, Funny)
Hrmmmm. Kinda like their upgrade cycles.
Whoa, all joking aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whoa, all joking aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sophisticated hackers identify exploits before they get mentioned on bugtraq and before a fix or patch is even looked at. Those people are a big threat to a company like Microsoft.
Instead of being horrified at Microsoft, you should be pleased. They are taking a remarkably straightforward tack by highlighting the industry's dirty little secret. That is an about face from typical Microsoft FUD.
Re:Whoa, all joking aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading Comprehension Problem (Score:2)
Re:Reading Comprehension Problem (Score:2)
Before I go drinking (Score:4, Interesting)
I know when the BeOS source was leaked, every smart programmer stayed away from it - else be blamed for stealing 'IP'.
Consipiracy Theory #234,345,234: MS deliberately leaks the source to some EOLed code such as Win 95 or NT, and sues anyone who is making inroads with alternate OSes or applications, such as Linux, Mozilla, Open Office etc.
What fun! No doubt, there will be no need to show their code for National Security reasons. We'll just need to trust them.
No Patch Policy (Score:2, Funny)
more of the same, over and over and over (Score:3, Insightful)
What's more, the moderators encourage this lack of constructive talk by modding up things purely because they decry microsoft. How many days in a row are we going to hear the same old tired MS jokes?
Just because you run linux/bsd doesn't mean you're safe [geek.com]. Hell, by being connected to the internet at all you're at risk. Anyone with enough time, education and willingness to exploit you is going to eventually find a way in.
Anyone running any operating system can be attacked and comprimized. Security is only as good as the people who maintain the machines. You people sometimes seem to forget that despite MS's faults, they do employ some of the best and brightest in the world. I imagine some of you may not believe that, but I do.
Personally, I think that if linux were a home desktop platform that had enough popularity to be a significant enough player in that market you'd be seeing a whole lot more hackers focusing specificly on linux. Realisticly, what is the point of trying to exploit linux? Why exploit the little guy when you can go after the big fish? Especially when the majority of people running the big fish's stuff couldn't secure _any_ box to begin with, regardless of what it was running.
Same thing with the mac. I love it when macos users say "I never get viruses/worms!" well, who would write a virus/worm for such a miniscule percentage of computer users? The whole point of a virus/worm is to propigate, and if you don't have the userbase for it to propigate well, what's the point?
I apologise if I've offended people here, but I really felt this needed to be said. This persistant catscrap between linux and windows users doesn't help anything, or anyone.
Linux/BSD ARE good operating system
MacOS/OSX ARE good operating systems
Windows IS a good operating system
and they ALL have faults.
Re:more of the same, over and over and over (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:more of the same, over and over and over (Score:5, Insightful)
I, like many here I would imagine, have to manage a lot of computers. In any common enterprise environment systems tend to range from old Windows 95 systems whom's only purpose is to drive some old piece of software with a very specific function, to Windows 98 and 2000 workstations, to Macintosh boxes for the marketing folk, to Linux servers running enterprise anti-virus solutions, to Netware servers running ZENworks, to 16 processor HP-UX beasts for databases, to OS/2 servers that run physical security systems (like magnetic card readers that grant access to the NOC for certain people/staff).
Of all of these operating systems that we people manage, a disturbing trend of insecurity has always plagued the Windows operating system(s) and the applications that Microsoft pushes for it. For years. Email clients, mail servers, web servers, core OS compenents, or just plain bad OS design that leads to the easy proliferation of things like viruses and worms. ANd worst of all: there is no escape from it. Everyone uses it, the management only wants stuff that is "supported" and/or "warrantied", and let's face it, it gives us job security.
So, when we relax, unwind, and gripe, we tend to end up taking a stab at the shitty software that has absorbed so many of our hours - time that could have been better spent having fun, or with our families, or responding to morons on web forums. You know.
Re:more of the same, over and over and over (Score:4, Insightful)
A minor password incident at Debian and it's front-page news.
Similar incidents at Microsoft, we'll never hear about it.
Security is only as good as the people who maintain the machines.
There are many factors affecting security. The people maintaining them are one factor, and probably far from being the most important factor. Making a system inherently insecure and then blaming the people maintaing them does not make for credible security.
Than why the hell are you reading slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
For some reason you wrote:
"Realisticly, what is the point of trying to exploit linux? Why exploit the little guy when you can go after the big fish?"
Apache is the single most prevalent web server on the internet. Why then is it that hackers "target" IIS? Maybe because it's easier?
and decided to continue:
" they do employ some of the best and brightest in the world. I imagine some of you may not believe that, but I do."
Have you seen Balmer lately? The problem with working for MS is that, even though you may be smart your just wasting your time. Who cares that you can give a lecture on some brilliant way to link corporate data to business users if your entire architecture needs to fit into a proprietary MS 5 year plan for the enterprise?
MS has had 20 years and billions in funding and the best they can come up with is Windows XP. XP solves problems that Unix, Apple, X, NeXT, Amiga, et als. solved a decade ago. MS produces over architected under engineered gaming consoles that are'nt even compatable with themselves.
If your looking for "fair and balanced" where are you going to go? Read a frigin Windows rag if you want to "balance" Slashdot. I'm sure there are plenty of fine articles on .NET just waiting to provide you with hour of fun filled and objective learning experiences.
Kind Regards
Smart cards do not cost $50 (Score:2)
Smart cards are much cheaper than $50 each. For development work I get them (for this device [ncipher.com]) for under $10 each in quantities of 10 and that's expensive. In large quantities they are available for a few dollars each. I'm sure MS buys them in quantities to ensure some sort of discount is applied.
300k node? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not to sound old fashioned, but I wonder if using several large systems and dumb terminals would help lower costs and problems?
This was the standard motto in the early 80's when pc's were considered toys.
But 300k nodes sounds like an administrative nightmare.
I wonder if we would all be using network computers and thin clients now if MS never existed. They put all sorts of fud and raised the price of cli
Re:300k node? (Score:4, Informative)
No, its not really excessive. When I worked there, I usually had 4 machines for myself, in my office, and I did development work. Oh, and I had a laptop as well. Testers often used, many, many more machines.
Then add the build machines, servers, a laptop for many people, machines for temp/consultants, people VPN'ing in from home, and it easily makes 300k.
Re:300k node? (Score:2)
Maybe that is why they bought virtualpc?
Re:300k node? (Score:2)
I am not claiming it is a requirement to run Linux for that, I use VMware (which runs on Windows as well) and Microsoft have acquired a different product that provides virtual machines.
It really works well when testing in different environments, certainly for application compatability.
For driver compatability you may need some more iron.
Some people at Microsoft are smart. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you don't get to be the biggest software company in the world without selling products. (And Microsoft is arguably the most important software company - although I think overall Linux is more important in it's potential as an equalizer - there is no one single Linux company).
Selling products implies marketing. This is where it goes wrong. The second that product development is driven by marketing telling customers what features they want - things explode. I mean, really - half the crap in Windows and Office was never wanted by customers in the first place.
I'd still prefer to be using BeOS (I loved 5.0, but lack of support for new hardware meant I had to move on), so Windows 2000 is a pretty good compromise for my needs.
Microsoft is its (only) good customer (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason? Only Microsoft has the source code and "really understands" Windows. Everybody elses corporate networks running Windows are dogshit -- but Microsoft really does just use the crap the way they tell you to use it, and it works wonderfully. Unfortunately, they are the *only* example of such a user on the planet!
Re:Microsoft is its (only) good customer (Score:2, Interesting)
Really now. When was the last time you saw my network that you can make such a sweeping, generalizing statement?
Re:Microsoft is its (only) good customer (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't explain it to you if you've never experienced it. You are the proverbial man chained in the cave only seeing shadows cast on the wall.
Get a blue badge at Microsoft and then everything I'm saying will become perfectly clear to you
Re:Microsoft is its (only) good customer (Score:3, Insightful)
That's nice, but first off, I have no way to verify that you ever worked at MSFT. Or for that matter, that you've played chess with the Dalai Lama. Second, I've had SIE (maybe you'll know what that is) do evaluations on existing systems and come off impressed, actually interested in seeing some of the stuff we'd done with some of their own technologies.
That *some* companies are handicapped by the lack of skilled employee
licensing costs (Score:3, Funny)
Well at least Microsoft admits the possiblity... (Score:2, Insightful)
Inbound cx's from PRC (Score:3, Interesting)
Totally owned. MS netsec had no interest. The report impugned their competence. I have no idea if things are any better now. Maybe there was a shakeup after Code Red infected the very web servers that distribute patches for us all.
65K Smart Cards (Score:3, Funny)
You'll be getting a letter from Direct TV's lawyers Monday morning.
MLSA? Document classification levels? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I don't see any references to a document classification level system, plus the proper controls to implement them. We know for the halloween documen
erm ... (Score:2)
I though "Yeah, just like them - now lusers will associate their wallpaper with security"
Massive breakin expected?!?! (Score:4, Interesting)
That's rather scary if you ask me... as that leaves all the smaller companies that cant afford to keep up wide open too..
We could see a really bad year in 04 for attacks and break-ins.. Even worse impact on our industry than the 'litigious 03'...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Real discussion (Score:5, Interesting)
I work with MS once and awhile to get a bug fixed. Like ANY major software out there they have bugs just like the rest of us. Worked with a nice gentleman yesterday. He traced through their code for me. I have done if I had the code. But its their code, and I respect that. They were looking into why an API I use in my code changed after a 'security' hotfix. After an hour of tracing he found that it was wrong. I knew that, but thats ok too, he had to prove it to himself. After all that he told me 'if its a security hotfix it will not be fixed your lucky the code ever worked the way you were using it'. He was right, I knew what they had done and its a good thing.
The moral here? They are deadly serious about security. They will not back out a fix just 'cause'. They are fixing the holes that are there.
I am convinced they are enduring some of the most punishing testing on the face of the planet. To use a term from open source, 'many eyes make all bugs shallow'. They are on a much larger number of desktops then any other OS out there.
I have never found them 'arrogant', 'loud mouthed', or 'bullying'. Like I find on slashdot sometimes about open source. I have found them to bend over backwards to fix ANY bug they have. They do not pounce on it. But they DO fix it. They do not 'hack' it into the code. They test it and make sure its good. If you act like an ass to them they respond in kind. They have THOUSANDS of bugs to fix and they have prioritized them. They only have so many 'core' developers and they are trying to write new stuff and retrofit old stuff.
They have a serious challange. The code is basicly done. They now have to go through it ALL and fix things that were never a priority for them. I would cringe at someone coming up to me and saying my code has the same serious problem in every module, and every function. That is basicly the problem MS has. And making the code 'open source' would make the problem better in some ways, but much worse in others. Also would you want them to rush out a fix for something? Or test it and make sure it works? Also if you want top shelf support out of MS you need to talk in the language of the corporate world. You need money to wave at them. Otherwise get in line with the thousands of other people.
Also do not be fooled by that linux has no 'serious' bugs. They exist, can you say 'root kit'. If you belive that linux is secure by default your living in a dream world neo.
I look at the two systems as tools for me to do things. I have both types of boxs. I use both for many things all the time.
They have ignored serious bugs in IE for years (Score:2)
It's insane. And ignored.
I tell them to use a browser that has not been hacked onto the OS like a siamese twin.
Re:Microsoft is insecure? I never saw that coming! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh get over it already. It doesn't take 20 scripts and ten screens of typing to make an OS powerful or functional. Some 'power users' actually like the idea of using a couple of clicks to print photos or play music with the OS UI model.
This reminds of DOS/UNIX people bashing all GUI interfaces in the 80's.
Are we really back to the days of using words like WIMP and telling everyone that GUI's are in
People ask when Linux will lead instead of follow (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is an opportunity for Linux to bring something entirely new to the table: UI consistency. The gratuitous UI changes from one windows flavor to another are deeply frustrating. Finding a particular admin applet is like playing whack-a-mole. As I recall in NT 3.51 the hard disk management applet was easily reached. Every generation hides it deeper.
And the default XP screen is really infantile - inspired by Teletubbies. You can see Po and La-la on really hi-rez screens.
Re:People ask when Linux will lead instead of foll (Score:2)
That can probably be argued to be a good thing. Each major release of Windows is sufficiently different from the previous ones, I think, to warrant making it a little difficult for an admin to make the transition. That way, they're forced to actually read about the new capabilities, config options, etc, rather than just going in blind and potentially missing s
Re:Microsoft is insecure? I never saw that coming! (Score:3, Interesting)
If you think buffer overruns are a Microsoft OS only problem, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I've heard (and mine) are about the damned cartoonish color scheme and the total waste of screen space in each and every window that dosn't add any functionality to the GUI itself.
And the funny thing, you can turn on/off what level of extra func
Re:Microsoft is insecure? I never saw that coming! (Score:2)
fords do this too
This is a fake post (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows update kacked (Score:3, Informative)
(There was concrete evidence of this but unfortunately I don't have it.)
Here it is. [wss.net]
Re:uhm (Score:2)
Not necessarily. It would be extremely hard to compile, and why bother if there are millions of perfectly compiled copies already? If you want only to look at it to find exploitables, you don't even need to try that hard; most Windows boxes have plenty of well known and unpatched vulnerabilities. Finally, if you are some sort of uber-spy and have to break into a very specific Windows box, you e
Re:get real this is your life (Score:2, Funny)
To base security on secrecy is a losing game.
All secrets become public one day or another.
Supposedly god knows it all.
So all who know god have the secret.
In the corporations you have those with access to the secret
and the others those who do not have the access.
Upper and lower classes of employees,
the elite and their mass controlled by their needs,
And implementing a clever behavoir, understanding these needs.
Being successfull in business requires fulfilling these needs,
fi