7 ms·

Despite their posturing, how can we trust Microsoft (and other companies like it) ? Windows is a black box. How do we know that there are no backdoors/spying ro

by jkh1 9y ago

Despite their posturing, how can we trust Microsoft (and other companies like it) ? Windows is a black box. How do we know that there are no backdoors/spying routines to please some governments ? How can we trust that it behaves ethically with all the data it collects ? We only have their word for it.

tunap 9y ago
The Pro-MS downvoters are in force this morning. I will take the downs b/c I have not added any substance, but this trend is getting out of hand.
thr0waway1239 9y ago
What are you even talking about? Don't you know that they do so much open source these days?
- devopsproject 9y ago
  You can contribute to open source and still do bad things: https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-windows-computer-microsoft-probably-has-your-encryption-key/ https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-window...
  - infinityplus1 9y ago
    I believe it was a sarcasm. Look at the italic part.
    - thr0waway1239 9y ago
      Yes it was. But I am enjoying it. No one group has a monopoly on knee-jerk reactions, you see.
    - devopsproject 9y ago
      You are correct. Unfortunately I have seen this sentiment used non-sarcastically. what a time to be alive.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
devopsproject 9y ago
We already know windows is malware. There is no question: https://web.archive.org/web/20130622044225/http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20130622044225/http://blogs.comp... more here: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html
- intern4tional 9y ago
  Oh come on, this is stretching the accepting definition of malware a mile and then some. This is FUD plain and simple without facts to back it up. Microsoft releasing details of vulnerabilities in advance to premier customers is not something new. All software companies have that practice and we have seen it happen with recent OpenSSL vulnerabilities when CloudFlare has been given advance notice.
  - devopsproject 9y ago
    There are no word games here. Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user. If storing my disk encryption keys on Microsoft servers isn't harmful to my privacy and security, I don't know what is. https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-windows-computer-microsoft-probably-has-your-encryption-key/ https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-window...
    - intern4tional 9y ago
      Bullshit. I'm going to address your specific link. Microsoft has different classes of customers and the functionality that you don't want, many customers request and may even require. You aren't obligated to use their disk encryption or functionality. You can install your own WDE product, but you appear to want the features of a Ferrari for the price of a Ford Focus, which is not reasonable. Microsoft is not trying to mess with your system via that method. If anything, that is a blanket improvement prior by default there was no encryption. Could the design be made better? Maybe, with any implementation of a security feature there are always trade-offs. Microsoft could force users to store the key locally or print it, but then millions of people would simply turn encryption off or lose their key. This does not grant MS remote access to your system. There are plenty of things that are wrong with MS, but saying Windows is malware is FUD plain and simple.
darkhorn 9y ago
Even if we trust Microsoft we cannot trust the government of the USA.
captainmuon 9y ago
Well, you often have no other choice. You can go out of your way and install an open source OS, but then there might still be a backdoor in your hardware. Ultimatively, this can not be solved technically, but socially. In a country with a strong rule of law and democracy, you should be able to trust that the state builds no backdoors into your devices when they say they don't. And you should be able to trust the manufacturers that they don't do it by themselves. But unfortunately they have incentives to go both ways (short term profit + appeasing governments on the one hand, vs. gaining consumer trust on the other). I'll go meta here: How can we trust food companies? They have incentives to decieve us, to adulterate their products, produce as cheaply as possible and sell as expensively as possible. There are magazines, websites, that do nothing but test food. It blows my mind when I think about that. How antagonistic is our society, when the people who make our food are working against us. The solution we developed for that are checks and balances in form of journalism and consumer protection laws. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Whether its adulterants in food or backdoors in software, it's a similar problem.
- jkh1 9y ago
  I agree although recent developments in the western world indicate that we're not going down the road of checks and balances e.g. snooper charter in the UK, secret courts in the US.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > there might still be a backdoor in your hardware But, at least, not in the software. That's a large part of the attack surface that just isn't there.
a_b_c_d 9y ago
"We only have their word for it." You do? Where? Does this company warranty anything? What the user needs is not for Microsoft to improve Windows. At 15 new vulnerabilities a day (source: Microsoft) how can anyone argue with a straight-face that this is not a futile exercise? What the user needs is choice. More choices of computers that do not have Windows pre-installed. This monopoly is hurting consumers. It relies on a product that is grossly unfit for one specific area of usage: interfacing with an untrusted network, i.e., the internet. And Microsoft today requires a user to connect their Windows computer to the internet (for "updates" and "upgrades") lest the user be blamed for the product's own flaws when used in this way. Windows should not be connected to the internet, ever. It is for the LAN only.

by jkh1 9y ago

tunap 9y ago

The Pro-MS downvoters are in force this morning. I will take the downs b/c I have not added any substance, but this trend is getting out of hand.

thr0waway1239 9y ago

What are you even talking about? Don't you know that they do so much open source these days?

devopsproject 9y ago
You can contribute to open source and still do bad things: https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-windows-computer-microsoft-probably-has-your-encryption-key/ https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-window...
- infinityplus1 9y ago
  I believe it was a sarcasm. Look at the italic part.
  - thr0waway1239 9y ago
    Yes it was. But I am enjoying it. No one group has a monopoly on knee-jerk reactions, you see.
  - devopsproject 9y ago
    You are correct. Unfortunately I have seen this sentiment used non-sarcastically. what a time to be alive.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

devopsproject 9y ago

We already know windows is malware. There is no question: https://web.archive.org/web/20130622044225/http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20130622044225/http://blogs.comp... more here: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html

intern4tional 9y ago
Oh come on, this is stretching the accepting definition of malware a mile and then some. This is FUD plain and simple without facts to back it up. Microsoft releasing details of vulnerabilities in advance to premier customers is not something new. All software companies have that practice and we have seen it happen with recent OpenSSL vulnerabilities when CloudFlare has been given advance notice.
- devopsproject 9y ago
  There are no word games here. Malware means software designed to function in ways that mistreat or harm the user. If storing my disk encryption keys on Microsoft servers isn't harmful to my privacy and security, I don't know what is. https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-windows-computer-microsoft-probably-has-your-encryption-key/ https://theintercept.com/2015/12/28/recently-bought-a-window...
  - intern4tional 9y ago
    Bullshit. I'm going to address your specific link. Microsoft has different classes of customers and the functionality that you don't want, many customers request and may even require. You aren't obligated to use their disk encryption or functionality. You can install your own WDE product, but you appear to want the features of a Ferrari for the price of a Ford Focus, which is not reasonable. Microsoft is not trying to mess with your system via that method. If anything, that is a blanket improvement prior by default there was no encryption. Could the design be made better? Maybe, with any implementation of a security feature there are always trade-offs. Microsoft could force users to store the key locally or print it, but then millions of people would simply turn encryption off or lose their key. This does not grant MS remote access to your system. There are plenty of things that are wrong with MS, but saying Windows is malware is FUD plain and simple.

darkhorn 9y ago

Even if we trust Microsoft we cannot trust the government of the USA.

captainmuon 9y ago

Well, you often have no other choice. You can go out of your way and install an open source OS, but then there might still be a backdoor in your hardware. Ultimatively, this can not be solved technically, but socially. In a country with a strong rule of law and democracy, you should be able to trust that the state builds no backdoors into your devices when they say they don't. And you should be able to trust the manufacturers that they don't do it by themselves. But unfortunately they have incentives to go both ways (short term profit + appeasing governments on the one hand, vs. gaining consumer trust on the other). I'll go meta here: How can we trust food companies? They have incentives to decieve us, to adulterate their products, produce as cheaply as possible and sell as expensively as possible. There are magazines, websites, that do nothing but test food. It blows my mind when I think about that. How antagonistic is our society, when the people who make our food are working against us. The solution we developed for that are checks and balances in form of journalism and consumer protection laws. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Whether its adulterants in food or backdoors in software, it's a similar problem.

jkh1 9y ago
I agree although recent developments in the western world indicate that we're not going down the road of checks and balances e.g. snooper charter in the UK, secret courts in the US.
rbanffy 9y ago
> there might still be a backdoor in your hardware But, at least, not in the software. That's a large part of the attack surface that just isn't there.

a_b_c_d 9y ago

"We only have their word for it." You do? Where? Does this company warranty anything? What the user needs is not for Microsoft to improve Windows. At 15 new vulnerabilities a day (source: Microsoft) how can anyone argue with a straight-face that this is not a futile exercise? What the user needs is choice. More choices of computers that do not have Windows pre-installed. This monopoly is hurting consumers. It relies on a product that is grossly unfit for one specific area of usage: interfacing with an untrusted network, i.e., the internet. And Microsoft today requires a user to connect their Windows computer to the internet (for "updates" and "upgrades") lest the user be blamed for the product's own flaws when used in this way. Windows should not be connected to the internet, ever. It is for the LAN only.