Does a Microsoft "monoculture" endanger security?

Everyone is always looking for someone to blame for their errors. What is really endangering global internet security are the users. An application like IE has millions of bits of code. It would be impossible to test every possible scenario before it occurs, because there is no one who could possibly foresee the ingenuity of man.

When you purchase a legimate software from Microsoft, you are added to a user list. When they find a vulnerability, and it's generally found PRIOR to anyone exploiting it, Microsoft notifies its users. It is user who fails to apply the patch, thereby allowing the security breach.

My goodness! People must grow up, and quit acting as though their computer (s) exist in a vacuu.

I work in Information Systems, but I also have a business on the side. I see soooo many people who daily surf the internet, yet have no virus protection. My company has written a logon script to insure real-time protection stays enabled, because employees disable it because it slows them down. Yes, we have a firewall. Yes, we have a scanner at our gateway, and on the Exchange server, but today you must prepare for any eventuality. I believe the problem we have today is because people are always wanting someone else to do the job they should be doing themselves.

MicroSoft's bigest problem is they keep trying to do everything in one package !
Windows used to be a GUI that loaded on DOS then you added programs to do your work.
Now Windows is trying to be all things to all people. And this is a mistake !
If MS went back to biulding Windows as just a GUI and then biult modular plugins for all the services that might be needed. so great gaping security holes that affect even secure services in the current format of Windows would have little chance of compromising a system as only the modules that actualy needed System, access and interconection would get it not everything from word to the bloody clock !
This would help the IT industry also as there would be competition to biuld these modules for all sectors and thus Higher quality not just the crap that an overworked tech an MS thinks is OK.

The USA has Lemon Laws
If a car had as many faults as Windows you could take it back to the dealer and get a brand new one ! FREE !
But Microsoft cons us into buying their crap again and again with the promise that the next one will be better and more secure !
Why hasn't someone lauched a class action against Microsoft due to this practice I do not know.
Does anyone remember the AMIGA ? Commodore biult about the worlds best computer and OS there but Microsoft and IBM ran them out of business.
But People are still keeping the AMIGA alive
you can buy a brand new Amiga one with Power PC G4 chip and an os that can emulate a Mac faster than a Mac runs it's self at the same time as it emulates a windows PC !

Just to let you know I both love and Hate MicroSoft
I am a support tech and without MS windows I wouldn't have a job. But I still hate the crapy way they do things

For without them constantly attacking we would sink into a lethal lethargy.
Look at the Stink Y2K caused and then the letdown when nothing happened.
Imagine that we were all unaware of the Y2K issues and come January 1 2000 planes started dropping from the sky nukes were launched ETC ETC!
Thank you script Kiddies you keep Microsoft on their toes and cause them to atleast spend a little money on trying to make their products better and less on law siuts against the compitition !

There are serious faults in their basic designs of the products, which opens intrusion. But they as the Market Leader resist incorporating better designs of Competetors.

I said something similar up above.

We, as IT, should make the first move to wean our management from the MSFT Teat. We all know that we could provide better protection with better OS's that run faster, don't require reboots every time you walk past them, don't require never ending patching, don't "upgrade" ever 6 months and require you to pay for their new "features" etc...

The average corporate user doesn't use any of the "functionality" that MSFT OS's have anyhow. They browse the web, use email and MS word. A few use PPT and Access/Excel but not many by compairson. So why do we need all that other junk? We dont.

Lets just drop Linux on the desktop, tell the users to deal with it (In a politically correct way of course) and move on. They will get used to it after a few weeks/months and that will be all she wrote.

Or linux servers w/ samba. I have tested it and it works just fine.

The main resistance I get is outlook. Everyone likes outlook and doesn't want to use anything else. There is an "outlook like" linux application (can't remember what it is called right now, think it comes from WINE or something) but you have to pay a chunk for it and there is no "demo" that I have found so I don't anticipate getting any money from the bean counters for an unproved product.

Anyhow, lets start moving towards something other than MSFT and watch the changes ensue.

The thing are on run for Microsoft and even they only can't stop this. They try to do better for all but offcourse money matter. No once will try to stop promoting a fast running product due to some bugs. Over all this could be minimized by efforts.

I think that all of us (MS users AND non-users) can agree that MS software has its vulnerabilities and exploits, probably more that most of the other operating systems combined. I think most of us can also agree that at least some of the problems are due to the wide generalization of the microsoft product line, instead of widening the product line for a more streamlined product. We can all SURELY agree that security is, and always will be, an issue. Now, what do we do about it??? Let's get some solutions here. One thought: Could the modest windows security possibly be sufficient in an environment where outside intrusions is not an issue? (Granted, there will always be the remote possibilities of some CIA guy sitting outside in a van with high-tech stuff, but considering NORMAL security conditions.) Say, for example, one had double-firewall (one hardware, one software) security on the only connection into the network from an outside source (broadband/internet). Wouldn't the general windows security with lesser restrictions be a plus in this area? (Providing you can trust your users, of course.)

"Yes, earlier versions of windows were buggy and not nearly as easy to use for beginners. But that just flat out isn't true anymore."

Huh? If the current versions aren't "buggy", then why do we have to install patches so often? I guess you don't consider security wormholes that threaten to destroy civilization (a little hyperbole there, but only a little) to be "bugs"? Especially the ones that are left over from Windows 98 because in six years Grungeware's QA staff (if there is one) hasn't learned how to implement basic code inspections?

"A stock windows XP machine from say, Dell can do everything that you just said right out of the box without tweaking a single setting and with no errors or problems."

Again, you seem to not define worm infestations, spoofing of e-mail addresses, denial of service, and identity theft as "errors or problems." Why not? Security has arguably emerged as the dominant concern on this thread.

"The fact is, XP is finally the OS that everyone that didn't own a mac wanted."

My office workstation runs Windows 2000 because even large companies with a 24/7 help desk are skeptical about XP.

"Now, all Mac users can claim is that their computers do graphics and audio better."

No. Those are just the applications that work better even for a professional user. For a less computer-literate household environment all applications are more user-friendly and require less IT expertise.

"And frankly spending 50-70% more to test that theory just seems plain dumb. I have a machine that performs almost flawlessly for everything I can think of doing on a computer and it cost me far less than a Mac."

I may be wrong about security being the dominant issue on this thread, but cost certainly is NOT. In any event, security is ONE OF the major causes for alarm both on the thread and throughout the consumer market and you consistenly avoid speaking to it. I recently stripped all the account numbers from the family Quicken files on my Windows laptop and my wife keeps all her sensitive business data on a removeable hard drive.

"And when I want to upgrade, I can and my machine will be as good or better than the newest Mac."

As I said before, Grungeware's definition of an "upgrade" is a cloogey Frankenstein, created by patching new features into old patched code that already didn't work right. Until these Windows 98 wormhole trapdoors stop showing up in XP, your assertion is patently false.

"Why would I spend more? Honestly, give me a GOOD reason and I might consider it ;)"

How about peace of mind? Every Mac OS is new software created using the latest project management techniques, from requirements to coding to testing. You don't have to run code that was created before principles that are standard in every other engineering discipline, like inspections and risk analysis, became part of the software SDLC. And you don't have to try to forget that, unlike elevators and virtually every other engineering artifact, software DEGRADES with maintenance.

How about productivity? My wife used to spend half her business day cursing at her Windows computer, running system utilities to restore its performance, and checking the trade press for the latest worm and virus identification tricks. Since she threw it out and got a Mac, the only sound I hear from her home office is humming.

We cannot simply give EVERYONE access to DOS, because DOS is too powerful a tool when put into the wrong hands (as viruses so clearly demonstrate even today). Windows may not have the best or the greatest security, but Windows does have one great advantage against the uneducated user: difficulty against simplicity. Does anyone share my pain in remembering how many screens one has to go through to make major settings changes in MS? (The stuff MS doesn't want the average user to get to, they bury under twenty windows in an obscure corner that the average user would not find by mishap or wandering about!) Therefore, in a way, Windows did us a favor by getting away from pure DOS. Besides, imagine the security problems we'd have from hackers if we all still used DOS. No logins/passwords, no accounts, just pure, unrestricted access. Go figure.

I installed a total Linux environment into a new company. There was nothing Microsoft at all in the place and I did this as a form of cost cutting and increased security for the customer. The owner was happy with the costs involved and when the business started I was constantly called back in to "Fix Problems" but every one of these service calls was in reality only to show the end users how to work the system.

Like I can't install MS whatever why? There where no real apps involved only utilities that the end users thought they needed. I did however use the forerunner of Win4Lin can't remember its name now and ran Corel's Word Perfect Office as their main Office apps.

The real problems started when they tried to adapt their accounting packages to Linux as it didn't work on that platform and it had to be used. Well the long and the short of it was I had to buy a MS Volume Licence Agreement and spend several days installing Windows on 200 computers. Not a very pleasant experience I can assure you, but then again I sought of expected it as well. They currently have Windows Y2k on their workstations and every server in the place retains the Linux that was originally installed.

Not a perfect solution but at least it works and the customer is happy now if only there where the same accounting packages that are so common foe the MS platform available for Linux things would be great. Incidentally they are still using Word Perfect as their main Office App and now wouldn't consider switching back to MS Office.

Col

This is exactly why we switched to a Novell Server. I didn't have time to babysit a server on a daily basis. I think every system is hackable but I get tired of updating and managing patches and updating virus software. Granted, it's job security but Windows is a very flawed system and yet people keep buying it. It's very scary.

Do you suggest we catch these people with 100% certainty that they are the real culprits?

If I remember correctly "Slammer" was blamed on a student in Indonesia who didn't have a computer or access to a computer so in all fairness exactly how do you expect us to believe he was responsible?

Granted in all likelihood he probably did admit to it {But a few beatings with a rubber hose across the soles of the feet and you'll admit to anything.} What you have to remember is that a lot of these people live in different parts of the world where you're "Legal System" doesn't apply. A lot of these place want a conviction at any cost and are not really interested in catching the culprits just getting a "Result" so they can say we did our bit now you are expected to do you-re's.

Actually if you want to go back to the beginning of Hacking it started in Australia and when it started there where no Laws being broken no matter just how much damage was being done to the systems that where being compromised. So it is all well and good with you're simplistic view of things but you might as well say that all road fatalities are caused by speeding & drunk Driving and people should stop this. Unfortunately even with draconian penalties placed on these offenses it has not lessened the number of offenses being committed every year and there are many repeat offenders or in the case of speeding where the Police are not actively involved and rely on unattended mechanical means to gather speeding fines they are subject to Fraud. People can an do alter their number plates to pass the blame onto others who find it almost impossible to prove their innocence.

Col

"Condoning these little punks' activities just because you don't like the fact that Microsoft keeps beating everyone"

Microsoft doesn't continually beat everyone didn't they just recently get found guilty in the Courts for breaching something or other?

Didn't they get found by the US Government to be in breach of the Monopoly Laws?

Aren't they currently in court for being accused for inflating the prices of their products?

While they might win on the Sales front they do not often win in the courts remember the Netscape debacle?

But Microsoft learnt from that as they effectively stooped Netscape and at the same time made their IE the standard browser and at very little cost I might add in comparison to an all out advertising war with Netscape.

However they have finally found a way to get what they want they just buy a large interest in a company and then insist that they drop any "Open Source" projects. Once Microsoft get their war they then offload the stock quite often at a loss but it is cheaper than using other means to get their way. Just image what would happen if there was an "Open Source" version of Word Perfect available!

Just how long do you think Windows would survive? Once there is a real alternative to the Windows OS that will support the commonly used third party software that is used now you'll see a marked decrease in the sales of "Windows" and Microsoft knows this that is why they try so hard to prevent this from happening.

Col

It's easy to get consensus from techies by bashing Microsoft - their success, and yes, arrogance, has made them walk around with a big red target painted on their corporate butt - but it does nothing to help resolve the problem. Let's face it - script kiddies and hackers write exploits for Microsoft because a) that's the kind of computer they're using in Mom's basement, and b) it's a lot more exciting to potentially infect hundreds of thousands of computers than a couple thousand. The other OS's just don't have the customer base to make them as attractive a target.

Microsoft OS's can be hardened. It takes more work than it probably should on the part of the system administrator, but that's not an excuse for not doing it. Patches can be applied. It's a pain in the butt, but that's not an excuse for not doing it.

Going to another OS on the desktop - well, yeah, that'd be nice, but in most environments, there are things like finance applications, custom applications, in our case, lots of academic software, health services software, child nutrition software - all of which is designed for a Windows client/server environment. What do we do - tell the users they can't use those applications? That's not the IT department's decision in most environments. Sure, I'd love to go to an all-Linux environment - it'd make my job easier, and cost a lot less - but then what would the users do for those applications?

I agree with you on two points. The vandals creating these virus'
are the prime bad guys here and should be punished when
caught to the fullest extent possible. Also, Microsoft, I think we
all agree did not create this problem on purpose and I'm not
sure people resent Microsoft for making money -- after all it's
what we all hope to do 'one day'. In fact, as a long time Mac
user I have long supported them since they have created some
key Mac apps. The first software I bought with my Mac in 1985
was MS Word & Excel v1.1.

But, MS did make some bad decisions early in the game and
failed to respond as they should have and could have to fix the
security issues with the Windows platform. They therefore need
to should their share of the blame. The only reason big
customers need to share the blame is that they know of these
problems (for years) and have options to buy a 'better' system.

I disagree with your assessment of the other system and their
security issues. It does seem logical that the % user would make
it a bigger target. The other systems do have security issues,
but when compared directly it is clear that MS is proportionally
still infinitely more vulnerable.

As an anadotal indicator I have used Mac since 1985 and have
never had one incident of a virus impacting any system I have
ever used, alone, networked, on-line, etc. On the other side I
have also used PC's over the years and worked in mixed
environments. I don't know one PC owner who has not had
major virus and network problems.

True the other systems are not bulletproof but given the track
record of Windows and the relatively minimal problems with
Unix based systems why would anyone choose windows?

I have recently started working in the financial industry and it
seems the only system anyone is willing to recommend for
transaction and datbases is Unix based. Thank goodness.

Perhaps another reason that MS machines are hacked more often
is that ther are a lot easier to hack -- As a hacker why would
you try to break into Fort Knox when you could break into your
local small town department store so easily.

Tesla444

I agree we should stay away from the rape analogy. But the fact
remains that the use does have to take some responsibility - not
the innocent user who buys into the Windows nightmare
unwittingly, but those sophisticated users who continue to
support Microsoft without demanding a better product.

It is clear MS will not listen to individual companies or people
but they will listen to one spokesman --- Money. Money talks,
if we stop supporting them with $ in a big way, THEY WILL
CHANGE. Even legal solutions don't work with a company so big
but moving our business with demonstrate the power of Money.

Tesla444

When corporate software from Microsoft doesn't work properly, crashes frequently and often doesn't work at all, security is very much a secondary issue.

As an example even the updated "windows installer" is a complete catastrophe.

Surely Microsoft must employ at least one competent programmer (??). As we all know, security is almost completely non-existent but Windows isn't Unix, so I don't know what else we can expect! But when very expensive software is flawed or very flawed . . . .

Well Windows in all of its versions seems to be the most crashable software around. If you go to the Tek-Tips forum it is absolutely full of crashed windows systems. At our University we dissasembled Win XP and found two instances of 8 bit CPM code in the OS, MS claims there are no more 16 bit codes used, this might be tru, but they forgot about the 8 bit encoding. After numerous virus and trojan attacks we now use a linux server as a firewall and no more virus problems at all. This is over a period of two years. I just made a recommodation to our Uni to forbid the use of MS software at the university grounds. This will take effect at the start of the next semester.

Everyone in IT may be familiar with security issues related to Microsoft software. However, in my experience, many if not most folks outside IT know NOTHING about the issues.

They're trying to get online to send pictures or correspond with friends & family. Or trying to manage their finanaces or access various web sites where they have some account or another.

Ask them if they have a personal firewall or anti-virus software. Most can't even answer those questions.

I believe that Microsoft is aware of the flaws, that some are rather long lived, and that they have focused on consumer convenience to the detriment of security.

Those of us in the IT profession WISH Microsoft WOULD address the issues.

As IT professionals, we are all too aware of the major shortcommings, many of which Microsoft ARE NOT trying to put right.

Yup... indeed so, we're in a monoculture dominated by Microsoft and Co. Just go into any computer store and request a new PC with the latest version of Linux as the O/S ...lets say Red Hat's Fedora... a nice piece of work in progress. They'll look at you like your from outer space ...and you'll be treated just about the same way, like some kind of geeky nutbar.... "Fedora??!! what t'hells that?" they will say... Needless to say it's XP the so-called "included free" version or nothing... coming to you complete with enough security holes to drive a freight train through. Hmmm... maybe there's method in all this madness after all... to create a huge demand for a "newer, better, more secure" product perhaps? "have we gotta deal for you"... "Longhorn"!! Well, let's hope it's got some beef to it, and not just another case of mad cow disease.

Unfortunately, here in North America marketing realities demand that new product be displayed with the latest amd greatest version of Gatesware complete with it's obligatory copies of Outlook Express and IE. If Microsoft does fear anything about Linux, it's on the lucrative server side of things, where most of those those so-called geeky guys know better, and it's through their proxy-hired-gun SCIO that Microsoft hopes to throw sone fear and the cold threat of a libel chill into the heart of the open source movement.

Richard

So that they will improve their products is the only way that I think they will improve them in a very fast manner the problem still remains on how you achieve this.

I would be the first to drop all Microsoft products but it is always the customer who calls the shots in this area and no matter how hard you try it is up to them to decide what they are willing to use. Now even with all the faults inherent in Microsoft products they still have a lower Total Cost of Ownership than anything else so this is what every company wants the cheapest alternative that is usable.

Changing every thing to Unix/Linux/BSD or whatever is not an option in the business environment as no business who is big enough to affect Microsoft is willing to take that "Leap" into the unknown and attempt to run a network with products that their users don't know/understand. Microsoft remains where they are just because they already have a user base so large that currently it is impossible to use anything else.

As an example every Computer Usage course offered to anyone so that they can learn to use computers to improve their chances of getting a job only deal with Microsoft Products. Until this changes it will remain a self fulfilling action which spirals down-wards with products that are not secure have far too many features most of which are not understood let alone used and are based on obsolete bloated code.

Just try to find someone who is willing to teach Word Perfect Office 11 which is a better package than the Microsoft equivalent but is only found on a very small number of brand name computers which are sold for a price. This gives the impression that Word Perfect is a second rate suite of applications when in fact they are not but because they all work differently to the Microsoft Office suite they are no longer used and not all that long ago Word Perfect was the Word Processor Standard which everything else was compared to to see how good a job they had done in writing the code.

Col

When you leave a Back Door open that you didn't know existed are you still leaving an open invitation for every boy and his dog to come in play around and take whatever they like?

This is the difference between most other products and Microsoft software in all other products you're able to see what is happening how to lock the individual things up so that no one can gain easy access to them or at the very least there is some form of preventative security in place to make it harder to get in.

Now with Microsoft this isn't the case they even go as far as getting every end user to agree not to look at the code so you are prevented by the law from doing everything possible to secure the system. In a case like this exactly how can you be said to be leaving an open invitation to anyone to enter and do what they like without any comeback against them.

If it was a builder who hid a back-door that was un-lockable and people entered you're house you would have a come back against the builder if the laws where you are, are what you claim them to be eg an open invitation to everyone to enter so under the very same statement that you applied Microsoft should be responsible for all the flaws that they have built into their systems. However in the real world Microsoft have the money to stretch things out until you are bankrupt or dead either way even if you are in the right you end up losing. It is only when Governments are willing to take action against corporations that there is any chance of getting a result that might improve the product but at this stage where the "Legal Whores" are involved they are not interested in fixing the problems but only in money which they think fixes everything.

Col

Exactly how did Microsoft get hit by the "Slammer" virus when they had produced patches to block that venerability?

If Microsoft is unable to keep their Web Interface from being attacked particularly when they have released the patches to prevent the problem in the first place exactly how are we puny mortals expected to perform a better job than Microsoft can?

Col

Does the Mac have such a small percentage of the overall PC market?

Col

No Linux in most of the Western WOrld at least. Currently SCO's legal action is being blown out of all proportion as it originally started out as a Law Suit against IBM for "Breach of Contract" but somehow this has been turned into a Copyright issue. This happened when SCO attempted to "Blackmail" large companies who use Linux into paying them a fee to protect themselves against potential Law Suits for Damages suffered by SCO {Allegedly.}

While I still don't fully understand exactly how a Breach of Contract issue somehow became a Copyright issue that is what is currently happening and SCO has enough money to stretch things out to suit themselves. Didn't I read somewhere a few weeks ago that some Judge ordered SCO to make the alleged violations in the Source Code of Unix available to anyone who wanted it? I still haven't seen details on how to get a copy of this code but no doubt SCO is appealing that decision and has got a stay of execution until the appeal is heard. After all they do not want to release the alleged offending code only to see it changed so there is no longer an issue, or worse still have someone find out that it was in fact copied into Unix from Linux and that SCO is breaking the Licence agreement that they where willing to support while the previous CEO was there.

But no matter what happens in the current Court Action China will not outlaw Linux and will prosper by the very fact that they have the advantages of having willing people who are capable of writing code for the basic Kernel or apps in a very short time to do a special job or whatever. This is something that any company no matter how big they may be can never hope to emulate. Even Microsoft with all its programing staff is outnumbered by at least a factor of 10 to the 10th power of people willing to spend their time fixing/writing code so that the current Linux Kernels/Applications work correctly and develop new applications as the need arises. No company can hope to compete against this type of thing as they have to pay their staff where as the bulk of the Linux developers do it for the fun of it or just because it is there and they want to show just how good they actually are.

I for one don't doubt for a single minute that the alleged offending lines of code in Linux would be replaced in a very short time by these developers and then Linux would leave Unix in its wake and lead to the death of SCO.

Col

Somewhere there there is a break down of what patches became available over a specific period of time. At least there was during one of the Partner Briefings a few meetings ago.

MS claimed that they had released 250 patches but that there had been well over 2,000 patches for Linux in the same period.

While a good selling point someone did point out that MS had taken every patch from all the vendors and just added them together so there where quite likely several dozen patches for the same potential flaw but from different vendors.

You would have to look for an impartial study which to my knowledge doesn't as yet exist. Anything from Microsoft is only going to show whats Microsoft wants shown and the same can be said about any studies from the Linux side just like studies commissioned by the tobacco industry which always came to the conclusion that smoking was not bad for your health.

Until we see some totally independent studies on security and Total Cost of Ownership the issue will remain unresolved and heavily debated.

What most people here are saying is that from their personal experience they have observed whatever they are posting.

Col

Has a limited number of people available to address issues while the Linux community has a much larger number from all over the world who are only too willing to give of their time to address these issues.

You do the maths and there is only one conclusion possible Microsoft lacks the resources to compete with Linux as their overheads are too limited and too high.

Col

Security issues with the Source Code in your preferred OS if you can not access the code in question?

Any other approach to any form of security is flawed by this very action.

This is the limiting factor with Microsoft which doesn't exist in the Open Source side of the IT industry and it is the major draw back with every Microsoft product.

Col

Do you remember the 2003 product launch?

We where told that it was the most bullet proof OS Microsoft had ever produced out of the box which it pretty well was provided that you didn't enable IE6 which had a gapping hole in it but then again why does a server need IE6?

However if that was the case why include IE6 as an install option?

And Microsoft had know about this problem for months prior to the release of it anyway but failed to draw anyones attention to the hole as it affected everyone of their current OS's.

Back but back to the main point of your posting that all patches should be installed ASAP well I don't know about you but every patch/Hot Fix needs to be tested to make sure that it doesn't cause more problems that it is supposed to cure. I can vividly remember applying a Java Patch only to see all External & SCSI Drives disappear and the network connection as well. As it was impossible to remove the patch and the Roll Back function didn't work it required a total reload of the system and this time not install the Java Patch. Every company that I've ever worked for has always tested any patches before applying them just to make sure that they do not end up with far more problems that what they originally had.

But back to the main issue if even Microsoft can't keep their systems fully patched exactly how are we expected to?

Remember "Slammer?" Microsoft was one of the first networks to be affected by this so if they are unable to keep their systems secure how are we supposed to?

Col

You are saying exactly what I've said through this entire discussion.

But there are some differences in the way we see things. Microsoft bought a lot of the Software Houses out by getting them to agree to write code that would run on Windows without this Windows would never have gotten off the ground.

Now however Microsoft is doing everything possible to protect their market share like in the case of Corel Corp who where developing not only a version of their popular Office and Graphics programs but also a version of Linux. Microsoft in this case bought shares in Corel Corp and then caused Corel to drop all of its Linux Development by getting other share holders to vote it down at one of their shareholder meetings. While there is nothing illegal with this action Microsoft after getting exactly what they wanted sold off most of their Corel Corp shares at a loss I might add. Shades of their attempt to stop dealers installing Netscape on new computers as no one was using IE at the time. Eventually they where found to have acted illegally but by that time the damage had been done and now Netscape has gone the way of the Dodo.

But originally {and I was there at the time} Microsoft encouraged people to take home their products and install them on their "Home" computers so that they could learn to use them. The business liked this as they didn't need to pay their staff to learn the products and Microsoft got rid of Word Perfect as the standard Word Processor on the market everything worked well at the time at least from Microsoft's point of view.

Actually it was so successful that Microsoft has reintroduced this policy with their Volume Licence products so if you by a licence for X number of copies of any software the business is able to install the same number of copies on the "Home" computers of the workers of that company. But it goes even further as there is no attempt to track these installations so if a person leaves a company they can take the product with them and any new worker can install the Microsoft Products on their "Home" computer.

Actually you have it all back-wards as Microsoft's main aim is to dominate the business desktop market and then everyone else will be forced to use the same products if they want any of their electronic transfers to be able to be read on the Microsoft products. Have a good look at Office 2003 or even XP did you realize that they no longer have the Word Perfect converter installed by default? While it is possible to install this converter it isn't an easy process well at least it isn't well documented and requires quite a bit of effort to perform.

But I have been howled down for saying that there is no "Perfect" OS and that if Linux suddenly was in the position of Windows there would be as many holes found in it as there are in Windows but they would be of a different sought as Linux doesn't allow code to execute by itself like Windows does.

While I'm dating myself here I really still prefer Unix with all of its interesting quirks but then again the very first time I ever went near a computer it ran Unix and Microsoft wasn't even a twinkle in "God Gates" eye.

Perhaps we will soon see a Microsoft Version of Unix which would go a long way to fulfilling you're preferred dream. Or the other way of looking at it is that Microsoft donated a lot of money to SCO under the guise of buying the right to use the Unix Code so that SCO would start something against the Linux community which by its very nature Microsoft is incapable of competing with if only by weight of numbers in developers who are only too willing to spend hours writing/debugging code for no finical reward. I really don't know which way to think but I am confused as to how a "Breach of Contract" dispute between SCO and IBM can escalate into the current position where SCO without providing any proof has effect-ly attempted to extort money from companies with threats as they are now claiming not the original "Breach of Contract" by it has turned into a "Copyright" item and no one is showing the slightest concern about this. But Microsoft did put the money men in contact with SCO so at least they could survive the protracted Legal Battle that is to come.

Col

Some documents leaked out from MS and they showed that the windows system has about 64.000 flaws. This is known for quite some time. There are not tooo many zero's in this figure. Regards

Microsoft has a responsibility as the dominant developer and supplier of PC software to set the highest possible standards. By and large it does this. However, there are puzzling instances where Microsoft leave open TCP/UDP ports in critical applications and OS systems. Furthermore, browsers such as IE6 (with SP1 and hot fixes forever)are a shambles. I always advise clients to use Opera or Netscape for preference. Regards, David Mawer

To use the analogy of the house (yet again)....
It's not the builder/architect's job to make the house secure. You can however get a third party (security company etc.) to come in and secure it without needing access to any secret/intellectual property type stuff. A house is a house and people know how one works.

If it's not Microsoft's job to fix the security holes in their software then how do you expect third-parties to be able to do so without access to source code? Sure it can be done by reverse-engineering, but second-guessing isn't really the best way to go about fixing security holes in software.

If the EU Courts get their way not only will Microsoft have a substantial bill but they will lose control of their "Source Code" and we could very well see a SUSE, Mandrake or whatever Open Source version of Windows.

I'm betting if this was to happen Microsoft would have to rapidly improve its act because the other makers would plug a lot of the existing holes before they released their versions as they would need a reason for people to buy their product rather than just keep on with Microsoft.

Now there is something that dreams are made of Open Source Windows pity that if it ever actually happens it will first require bout 10 years for all the legal appeals to be finished.

Col

ADVERTISING IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS, WE HAD BOUGHT INTO A NICELY PAINTED HOUSE FULL OF TERMITES INSIDE, WHO'S BLAME IS IT? I AM JUST A SIMPLE IT SUPPORT TECHNICIAN THAT HAS NO CERTIFICATIONS BUT 10 YEARS OF RELATION WITH MS WHICH SHOULD BE (bs)HAD TOUGHT ME LONG TIME AGO THAT IN THIS SOCIETY WE LOOK AT PRETTY FACES INSTEAD OF LOOKING INSIDE WHERE REAL VALUES ARE, WHO ARE WE TO BLAME, LETS WAKE UP.

On the entire network/infrastructure setup.

First off, understand that MS products were designed for the masses. Ease of use and multiplicity of features was the goal. Linux, Unix, etc. were designed for and grounded in security and reliability while forgoing ease of use and features.

Both of these extremes have been converging over the past 5 years. *nix systems have been adding feature sets and improving interfaces to make administration simpler. Microsoft has been improving on its security standards (the upcoming Longhorn seems a huge step in the right direction).

Therefore, directly comparing the two brings us to the "apples vs. oranges" point. They were not designed to do the same tasks (ideologically speaking).

Now, to return to the subject:

Does having a monoculture endanger security?

Depends on how you use it. Standards are the cry of all technical people. Standards allow movement across platforms, interoperability, redundancy, and if used correctly - security.

If you have one platform, configured one way, then you know your weakness and strengths. We have a native AD installation with W2K clients. We have not suffered from one of the virus outbreaks in the last 2 years. No lost pcs, no corrupted data. This is because we constantly analyze our systems for threats and modify our securities as need be.

I think that one of the biggest problems with MS products are the admins/users. Because of the ease of use with MS products, many are lulled into lax mindsets. *unix admins are used to everything being disabled and having to manually enable/configure services and applications. This required interaction educates the user and reinforces the securtiy viewpoint of *nix products.

In fact, just for the record, I have not had one virus or crippling system issue out of my personal MS boxes. On the other hand, my first Linux install (public Apache, MySQL) was hacked in 2 weeks. Had to wipe and reinstall the box. Learned alot though (Dont run generic processes as root).

Linux in the Enterprise:

Servers, sure.

Desktop, only if RCE2 and Novell can deliver integration and central management like AD or NW.

My 2.5 cents ...

Flame suit armed and ready ...

:D

But maybe Microsoft could start by actually producing what they claim to make instead of what we currently get.

I could also argue that it wasn't the nukes that caused the Cold Way but the monopoly of thought patterns of the people involved at the time {Us verses Them mentality} the nukes where only the weapons of last resort as neither side was going to start something that could very quickly get out of control and destroy both sides. The Cold War was a perfect example of a no win situation.

That is something that we shouldn't be aiming for in the IT side of things however I could be wrong and the complete destruction of every computer on the face of the planet could be a great benefit to mankind in the long run as they would have to start thinking for themselves once again and not rely on others for the necessities of life. Have you noticed that when this became the accepted belief it was also accepted that the world owed us all a living no matter how slack we actually where?

Col

I want to point out that hackers are not to be equated with crackers, phreaks or other nutcases who are distructive. Hackers, check this out on your next internet search, vehemently deny any relation to crackers or phreaks or anyother criminal types who do distructive things. A hackers is a teck savy individual who modifies code to his or her own purpose and then frequently put it out into the open source community for others to use. Hackers are the ones who game us Linux, BDS, etc.

Analogies seem to be used freely here, so how about the auto industry? Automakers are constantly coming up with new stuff, and if any of that has the potential for harm, IT GETS RECALLED. I agree with an earlier statement that Microsoft never intended to make Windows insecure, there intent was for ultimate interoperability and functionality. That being said, they also have a responsibility to pay attention to security issues related to all their work. The amount of money lost due to lost productivity would be staggering if it could be tabulated! Microsoft needs to be held accountable for neglecting the security issues!
Personally, I can say that none of the computers in my control have ever been infected with any kind of virus, and I am NOT joking. I operate from behind a good corporate firewall on my job, and I have always had a dsl connection going through a router with a firewall at home, and I never open email attachments. It's that simple.
Microsoft is in large part responsible for the problem, but all the ignorant users give the hackers and script kiddies a reason to keep going. If this in any indication of our suviveability as a species, the human race is doomed! 8(

It's not new to use socio/biological systems to parallel computer
networks and I don't want to dwell on the obvious. When you
apply the concepts such as "in-breeding" and "bio-diversity",
you will find computer networks have the same vulnerability as
the bio-engineered crops and highly cultured species such as
the grapevines in Bordeux and Napa. In both cases, a single
ailment or virus can quickly wipe out the entire crop.

Most users have become resigned to using a Windows OS and Internet Explorer as their primary means of accessing the Internet.

Debate can rage for days regarding the monopoly of Microsoft and how it endangers free commerce, but a major point to consider is, as the prevalent forms of access, viruses, Trojans, and spyware are predominately aimed at these products.

If you go to the PC troubleshooting subsection of the Technical Q&A section, 8 of the first 10 questions I viewed were most likely spyware, in Windows systems running IE.

A greater diversity of platforms would make the spread of hostile software a little more difficult.

In the real world there are bad people and enemies both
here and abroad. There are also the creatively inept. Not
all bugs are malicious. The fundamental flaw is building an
insecure monolithic network, OS, and CPUs that all respond
to the same bug or hack. Diverse networks, OSes, and
CPUs moderate the risk just as heavy water moderates
nuclear energy. I don't know about you but when bugs are
flying around my house I close the Windows. WinX is much
more secure running as a recoverable guest OS on a Unix
host. I can clone and recover that. I cannot easily do so in
native Windows simply because "they" consider their
intellectual property more important than mine or yours.
Another fundamental flaw.

I am assuming that your moniker of USDOJ = US Dept. of
(non) Justice.
"Face it, Microsoft has a monopoly for one reason." I
thought we got rid of that.

I have Apple OS-X. I run Microsoft VPC (was Connectix two
years ago) and any guest OSes I want to toy with. I rarely
need WinX. So, you are wrong about the monopoly or not
doing your job.

One of the famous early Unix pioneer programmers
divulged that he'd buried in code a personal login to all
Unix systems with his code. Now a commercial
programmer he made the point that while an open
hackable code might be alarming, the situation is much
worse in companies that can hide what they are doing. And
we all know how trustworthy Microsoft is right? Enron
anyone?

I do not think you grasped the many posts. Most IT pros
will tell you that they are not good at what they do. Clearly
Microsoft and end users, and malware code writers all need
to share the blame. Clearly there are massive problems.
MS was warned about leaving XP open to DOS attacks
before they shipped it by crack Windows programmers.
Now we all get hundreds of emails from hi-jacked WinX
boxes. E-mail for many has become a useless burden,
abandoned by millions.

I run WinX and Linux as secure and recoverable guest OS
volumes using MS VPC on OS-X. I have yet to find a Virus
that hit my systems. I have operators Use OS-X Mail and
Safari to browse. They only run one app on Win2000 where
I don't even bother with updates or anti-virus because I can
recover the full system in minutes and they don't use the
major malware conduits, IE and Outlook.

An Emac with SuperDrive and the better than XP Media
system iLife suite of media apps costs $999, hundreds less
than a PC "equivalent".

I have yet to have a virus hit my system. Just for kicks I run
MS VPC and toy with WinX and Linux. I can clone, test, and
recover OS-X and VPC volumes. You cannot do so on
native Wintel boxes. So, your WinX system is at much
higher risk, you have many patching chores to do, and if
you fail to protect yourself you have hours or days to
restore your system software and settings. I can recover
fully in minutes. There is a real cost in all of that
nonesense. TCO anyone?

And then you are given the choice of the Red or Blue Pill and if you take the red one you'll endup in a place where a Linux screensaver is susposed to impart information.

So take the Red Pill and get with a real OS instead of the constant Beta Versaions that business wants!

Col

But does it endanger National Security probably not. The computers who are in charge of National Security are not on the Internet but on Mil net which is a totally different kettle of fish. Granted the Internet was created for the same purpose that Mil net now serves to have processing capability spread out across the country/planet depending upon the needs.

Now the DOD learnt its lesson with the Internet and fixed most of these with Mil net so in reality there are no real problems with Microsoft being the predominate OS in use but even then I would question that assumption as the mainframe market is still mostly Unix based and certainly has no Microsoft OS running as they where never designed to work on that kind of platform so even if every M$ system was available to whom ever wanted control it is very unlikely that they would have access to any of the really important capacities of the DOD.

The real problem arises because America is a "Free Enterprise" economy and so there are outside developers making everything from electronic control modules to aircraft/ships or whatever, even most of the machining work to make nukes is farmed out with only the really sensitive stuff being kept in house so to speak. So while it may be possible to get the plans for the new beaut Stealth Aircraft it is impossible to do much more and while this is an embarrassment in reality it is nothing more as the real enemy already knows what you are doing.

Back in the days of the "Cold War" both sides knew exactly what each other was doing and there is certainly no reason to believe that any of that has changed now days only the countries who need the data has changed. What a Government Knows and what a Government tells you can be quite different things so while it is a good idea to discuss these potential problems in the end it is nothing more than a pointless exercise in futility as these things have already been thought of by people much brighter than any of us here and with far more money to play with to get what they want.

Now while Microsoft may be big they pail into insignificance compared to what is available to Governments who are willing to spend the money to get exactly what they want no matter which country it is they can divert resources to do what they consider as "Pirotory" actions if that be knowing what the other side has well big deal after all only a fool would attempt to hide the fact that they have ICBM's as they work very nicely as a deterrent if nothing more and in all likelihood will never be used, in a case like this I would say we have 200,000 nukes when in actual fact there where only 1,000 the numbers are not important except if you can inflate them in a believable way.

Now as far as knowing how to build any form of equipment or knowing what you have big deal so they know you have Stealth aircraft so they know that they are very hard to track if at all possible another deterrent I would shout this from the roof tops and again inflate the numbers the more that they think you have the less likely they are to do anything against you.

Now we come to the real problem an enemy without borders to protect and any form of knowledge about what weapons you possess is unimportant to these people as they can move between countries as easily as you change underclothes so while you may have the capacity to wipe out several countries who you may think may be harboring them with impunity it is very unlikely that you will achieve your objective in any form as some will survive and your actions will only increase the fervor against your country making it a bigger target for attacks again from those with no borders to protect.

These are the real enemy as they have nothing to lose they can attack you when and where they like and then run away and become invisible until they launch their next attack. The current "War on Terrorism" even though it has been sidetracked must fail because we have no fixed enemy only an idea which is impossible to kill. For every one group we attempt to destroy there will be the remains raise up in greater numbers as each of the surviving people of the original group start their own groups.

The only way to prevent them from spreading is to stop the conditions that allow them to prosper so if we where to forget any attempt at revenge and make positive attempts to improve the lot of the places where these people are gathered from it would prevent the idealistic rabid dogs from increasing in numbers with throw away people who are only too willing to become "Cannon Fodder" any engagement like this is not a way but an attempt to genocide which in the current climate is an unacceptable alternative.

Col