"<...>report cited a now-ex-Microsoft whistle-blowing engineer who claimed he had repeatedly warned bosses as far back as 2017 about an authentication flaw<...>

"<...>report cited a now-ex-Microsoft whistle-blowing engineer who claimed he had repeatedly warned bosses as far back as 2017 about an authentication flaw<...> <...>the Kremlin spies used the SAML-based authentication flaw to gain full access to organizations' files and messages <...> via the backdoored SolarWinds software.<...> <...>was alleged Microsoft refused to fix this years-old problem because <...> [it would've cost MS billions whilst] vying for a massive IT contract with US fed gov<...>." I've long been a critic of Microsoft over multiple issues but I've been forced to the conclusion that expecting the corporation to make voluntary changes to its business practices is a waste of time simply on grounds that it doesn't make economic sense for it to do so. Years back in the halcyon days there was an expectation from both developers and computer users that new products both improved the state of the art and made profit for developers. That changed with Microsoft, like many, my early criticism of the company was that it was one of the first software companies that ruthlessly put profits before users' needs. As MS was a big influential software supplier with dominant, effectively monopolistic, control over products like MSDOS and Windows 95 its motives were blatantly obvious to us users. Why Microsoft's behavior was so obvious to many of us early computer users was that it contrasted strongly with our earlier experiences. Many of us had come from a hardware/electronics background and were experienced in using high quality state-of-the-art test equipment from renowned companies like Hewlett Packard† and Tektronix—companies that took great pride in the excellent products they produced. Their products were expensive but they were also damn good. Microsoft's products, were damned expensive, often short on user expectations, buggy and often bugs weren't fixed throughout the product's lifetime. With Microsoft what became very obvious to us was this manufacturer clearly had a different agenda, profits were more important than quality, and this was a very noticeable cultural shift from what we'd been used to. Since then, the profit motive has hardened further as companies have grown larger and become more corporatist. Shareholders generally have the profit motive first in mind whereas early founders of companies primarily focused on their products. This is the new norm, the current business ethic that we expect from most large corporations these days, and we have to accept the fact. It means we've now even fewer choices than ever as corporations merge and become even bigger monopolies. Therefore, like it or not, we are forced to deal with monopolistic corporations like Microsoft and they know it, they know we have to accept the limited choice they have on offer. Thus despite any utterances from its PR department to the contrary, it's clear Microsoft's whole raison d'être is aimed at maximizing shareholder profit, and if that means trampling all over users, uses' privacy and downplaying security then so be it. Right, 'business as usual needs a real change' but as things stand now there's no way that's going to happen despite Microsoft president Brad Smith's conciliatory tones. Our only hope is to force governments to act—to introduce new laws and regulations that force companies to behave responsibly. Even better would be laws that make CEOs and senior executives criminally liable for breaches of law. _ † HP is a classic illustration of the change in tech corporate ethics, these days I'd never buy any product from HP because of its unacceptable policies towards users.