Over-Reliance On Microsoft Endangers Business And National Security

[phoebe]

A panel of security experts blasted Microsoft for vulnerabilities in its software and said the company's monopoly on operating systems is a security risk.
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb News



A panel of leading security experts Wednesday blasted Microsoft for vulnerabilities in its software and warned that reliance on the company's software is a danger to both business and national security.
The group, which debuted its report at the first day of a two-day conference hosted by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), was headed by Dan Geer, chief technology officer of @Stake, a security consulting firm.

"As fast as the world's computing infrastructure is growing, vulnerability to attack is growing faster still," Geer said. "Microsoft's attempts to tightly integrate myriad applications with its operating system have significantly contributed to excessive complexity and vulnerability. This deterioration of security compounds when nearly all computers rely on a single operating system subject to the same vulnerabilities the world over."

Ed Black, the CEO and president of CCIA, whose members include Microsoft competitors such as Sun and Oracle, was even more blunt. "Microsoft's monopoly threatens consumers in a number of ways," he said. "It's clear it is now also a threat to our security, our safety, and even our national security."

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15200245

edited to add "boldness"..!

[lostnfound]

1. And a monopoly, and a threat to privacy, etc.

Go Linux!

[reprobate]

3. I'd switch in a minute, but for quicken.

It seems like everything else has a linux equivalent: browser, office, multimedia, etc. But the most important to me is quicken, and my bank only recognizes quicken (I pay all my bills online thru quicken), so I'm stuck with either running two OS's or just sticking with xp.

And if I have to stay with windows, what's the point?

[Emillereid]

13. Get an IMAC -- supports Quicken!

[reprobate]

21. I'd love to, but got too much invested in hardware.

Been wishing for years that apple would port their OS for the intel architecture.

Of course, no one would buy Microshaft then, would they.

[david_vincent]

23. Dude! You can run Quicken on Linux

Just run it via Win4Lin or VM Ware.
I've been Microsoft free since 1/03

[WHAT]

9. Here is a link...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25157.html

to a letter in reply to microsoft that discusses the preference of Peru wrt open source software.

As a non-technical person, I found it very easy to understand and the arguments detailing state benefits for the use of open source software very cogent...for business, security, employment, democracy, etc.

It was linked in a previous thread by someone involved with the BBV issue...the last few paragraphs are great...the whole letter is great!

[Drifter]

2. Good ... does that mean ...

we are going to bomb the crap out of Seattle (or at least somewhere near there)?

It's about time.

</sarcasm>

Cheers
Drifter

[ArkDem]

4. What a surprise

a group of Microsoft competitors think Microsoft is bad. I'm dumbfounded.

[w4rma]

6. Monopolies and Oligopolies are always bad, IMHO (n/t)

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. No

Despite the endless techie attacks on Microsoft, they have done more FOR business than any computer company in history. Perhaps even any company in history. They have normalized functions and software so that job skills and technology work across many corporations and industries.

NOW, they need to tighten things up. But part of the compatibility will lead them to problems.

Part of the problem also is the hacker/cracker mindset that they can do whatever they want in the computer world -- like creating viruses or exposing security holes so others do so. THAT is a security issue also.

[Chico Man]

10. I'm not so sure about that

Microsoft has only been in the enterprise software market for a few years. They may have done more for the consumer market than anyone else. But, most large corporations are still relying on IBM and other mainframes at the lowest level.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Most of the world is not large business

Nearly every business in America that uses computers is using some Microsoft products like Word, Excel and others. That is the revolution.

[Chico Man]

19. Well I still believe that the mainframe was more important to business..

All the things that make up the infrastructure that all businesses (small and large) rely on, such as wire, fuel, concrete, office equipment, steel, nails, wood, etc. is inventoried on mainframe computers. Thus, huge infrastructure projects, such as the building of cities, benefited greatly from this technology.

The advent of spreadsheets and word processors was certainly important. But tracking large amounts of raw materials and infrastructure components within mainframe systems really accelerated the world of business much faster than the jump from typewriters and "word processing devices" to a monopoly of Microsoft Word.

[MadHound]

15. How so?

Most everything they put out is a rip off(and a bad one at that) of other OSs' and other software. Windows is nothing but a rip off of the Apple GUI and OS(why do you think MS settled with Apple a few years back). The only genius that Gates has is in knowing what to rip off, how to repackage it, and how to sell it. The compatiblity issue is a laugh, Macs are more compatible cross platform than any Wintel box, and their "normalization" comes simply from the fact that they are a virtual monopoly.

Sorry but with MSs' notorius security bugs and their penchant for leaving back doors to bypass privacy, I think I'll stay with a Mac.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. VHS and Beta

Beta was better, VHS caused a revolution in home entertainment. Which one had more impact?

Microsoft has marketed better and gotten companies and consumers around the world to use their products. As a result, we actually have some products compatibility around the globe.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. I don't buiy that.

Agreed that standards and compatability are important and companies have spent billions trying to get DECs to talk to IBMs over the years, but that is the sort of thing that was working itself out.

Having one OS and one set of applications ultimately decreases productivity. Microsoft is forced to make maintaining its market share more important than servicing its user base.

IBM ran into this problem, as have others.

Where the hell is IBM, anyway? Howcum they let Microsoft barge on to the desktop?

[Atlant]

26. Read "Big Blues"; it explains how IBM lost the desktop. (NT)

[FlaGranny]

29. I tried IBM's OS

some years ago. It wasn't nearly as user friendly as Windows, unfortunately.

[lostnfound]

28. In early 80's I used to say 'microsoft should take over the world'

because I loved their spreadsheet package so much. What beautiful software, I thought. But I have a growing weariness with monopolistic behavior, and with the overly restrictive patent system which protects big corporate profits at the expense of human advancement. Pharmaceuticals and software are two peas in a pod, as are software and entertainment, in some respects.

Too often, individual entrepeneurs are squashed, and leverage is the most profitable asset.

In Europe, there is much argument over whether software should receive patents or copyrights (much shorter).

Software production is not capital-intensive (except in accounting terms, where labor itself can be capitalized). With Linux programmers around the world contribute the fruits of their intellectual labors to the public as a whole, and their work is open to allow others to build on it. It's a beautiful thing.

I like the idea of freeing 'intellectual capital', to be passed down as a gift by those who produce it, not owned and leveraged by wage-payers.

[sendero]

25. anyone who knows

jack sh*t about software systems thinks MS is bad.

[Chico Man]

12. We experienced what they are talking about first hand here last week

24 hours of network downtime because of a Microsoft specific virus. We are a billion dollar company. We lost millions of dollars that day.

Large corporations need a team, or several teams, to make sure Microsoft environments are all up to date.

This vulnerability was traced to a single laptop with a Microsoft windows 2000 operating system brought into our system in hibernation mode.

This emergency is GREAT. Corporations relying on Microsoft for day to day business are teetering on disaster.

[Nottingham]

5. And then when He has Indians programming for US Defense

Thats a National Security issue is right!

MicoSoft should be sued for Negligence!

[AP]

7. Competition and choice are always best for economy, and everything.

[Karenina]

11. Well....

D'oh...

[mrsteve]

14. An excellent recent article on the risks of the Windows monoculture

From the Boston Globe -

"The real issue isn't superiority, it's diversity. We live in a computing monoculture, in which nearly everybody uses the same type of software running on the same type of hardware, and consequently gets infected with the same kinds of malware."

(ed. - malware - viruses or other exploitative software that installs and/or runs without your permission or knowledge)

Also a great discussion is on this web site:

Monoculture:Just As Bad an Idea in Computing as in Agriculture

"In a monoculture, however, if the single dominant variety happens to be susceptible to the disaster, it can be totally wiped out, turning what could have been a minor problem into a global catastrophe, and leaving little breeding stock from which a resistant variety can spring. This is basically what happened with the Southern cotton crops and the boll weevil near the turn of the 20th century...

Like agriculture, computing faces threats such as viruses, worms, and other factors, both malicious and accidental, that cause things to fail. And like farmers' fields, computers, collectively, can make up a monoculture -- all operating with hardware and software of identical design produced by the same vendors -- or a multiculture, with diverse hardware and software with much difference. Just as it is with farms, computers with greater diversity are less likely to be completely wiped out by any calamity that spreads through the computing world. A computer virus is likely to be written to run on a particular platform, and take advantage of the security weaknesses of a particular set of software products, and will be completely inert on a computer that's designed differently. A fatal bug in one software product is unlikely to be replicated in others. Hence, a multiculture is more robust at resisting disasters; some computers and software will be adversely affected, but others will come through unscathed, and the total damage will remain at manageable levels. The spread of dangerous viruses and worms may slow down or stop when most of the systems they try to infect turn out to be immune, rather than spreading like wildfire in a world full of identically-vulnerable computers."

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Not the same

Pests in agriculture are natural. Pests in computers are mostly manmade. No matter what systems we build, assholes will try and screw them up.

[Chico Man]

20. Manmade- yes. At the onset. But, virii in the wild do mutate..

A virus eventually does become "wild" when it has mutuated to the point where the original can no longer be identified.

[mrsteve]

24. The origin of the pathogen is irrelevant

The results, however, are the same, whether the source of the pathogen is natural (a naturally ocurring plant virus or smut) or if the pathogen is artificial (a computer virus). A monoculture is less resistant to infection, and the result is a faster and wider spread.

Besides, I after a 15 year computer career in Dec VAX, Mac, various UNIX, and Windows, I can honestly say that Windows just plain sux. :evilgrin:

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Sure

That's why it's so universally popular.

[SaintLouisBlues]

30. They are so popular because consumers have had no options, hisitorically

Microsoft did not get this big because of innovations, it was because
of the sweetheart OS deal Gates signed with IBM. A brilliant move to be sure, but after it was in place, 100 monkeys at 100 terminals could have written all their software (didn't they)and it woud have dominated.

These guys were soul-sourced on the OS for the PC revolution. There was no competition and there still isn't. Gee Muddle, no competition
is anti-American, or at least anti-capitalist, which I'm sure you are against.

[ArkDem]

31. What he said

!!