10 ms·

It seems like the response glosses over what Microsoft is actually doing and instead just attacks them for something unrelated (Widows is closed source). In the

It seems like the response glosses over what Microsoft is actually doing and instead just attacks them for something unrelated (Widows is closed source). In the FSF eyes, Microsoft can do nothing to improve security until Windows is open sourced.

obituary_latte 13y ago
No, I think in the FSF's eyes -- rightfully -- it can't be proven that security has improved. I also can't agree that it isn't related. If I tell you I'm wearing a green shirt, how can you know for sure if you or someone you trust hasn't verified it? You can't. It's the same with MSFT. But in the case of MSFT, it has been proven that they wear a lot of Hypercolor[1] stuff. Is it good that MSFT is doing stuff to make things more secure? Sure. Do we still have to take it on faith that they are doing everything they can to protect their users? Yup. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercolor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercolor
- criley2 13y ago
  So, Microsoft and its Windows product adheres to no industry standards, has no external audit process, has never been verified by a private or Government contract agency through audit or other verification process? I work in a small programming company and we do internal and external audits while maintaining compliancy with federal and state regulators as well as groups like ISO. Sure, our work is closed source, but that doesn't automatically mean it hasn't been externally verified for a number of different things by a number of different organizations...
  - obituary_latte 13y ago
    No, I did not say those things. That aside, if you wanted to, after an audit/review concluded, could you put a backdoor in your software? Since it's closed source, would anyone know about it?
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      In deterministic build? It will be very hard. I doubt that any audit signs on anything other than specific versions.
      - throwaway2048 13y ago
        does microsoft use deterministic builds?
    - andrewfong 13y ago
      If there's a deterministic build process, in theory, the auditor would know something was up if the binary differed.
    - riquito 13y ago
      There are these things called signed binaries...
      - danbruc 13y ago
        But signing binaries does not prove from which source the binaries have been build, only who did it.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > Sure, our work is closed source, but that doesn't automatically mean it hasn't been externally verified for a number of different things by a number of different organizations... Yes, but we have to take your word for it.
    - danbruc 13y ago
      As mentioned below, a software being secure and the ability to convince yourself that a software is secure are two different things.
  - belorn 13y ago
    Audit and verifying the security of software the size of Microsoft Windows without source code is like auditing and verifying the security of the international space station with only the help of a hand held telescope. Sure, it looks like its not leaking air. It has not dropped down to earth yet, and all the videos posted on their website looks to show it being fine. However, if I ever went there and depended on its security, I would demand more.
  - the_af 13y ago
    If a piece of proprietary/close source software gets audited by an external agency, any of the private actors involved can be involved in deception (the authors of the software, the auditing company and the government or whatever). They can all be in collusion. This would have sounded like a conspiracy theory before recent discoveries, but now we've seen this can actually happen. Whereas if the source is open, and you are a subject matter expert (yes, that's a big if), you can review the source yourself. You can decide for yourself whether the software has an NSA backdoor, an innocent flaw or whatever. Yes, a lot of people, myself included, don't have the technical background to do this. But with open source we could, if we had the knowledge (which can be learned), without relying on potentially compromised authorities. With closed source we simply can't. We have to trust the auditors and the government, which have been shown to be unreliable.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
hansjorg 13y ago
Why would you place any amount of trust in a closed source privacy solution from a company with a history such as Microsoft's?
- codezero 13y ago
  Because they employ intelligent, skilled people who care and know more about privacy than I do. How many open source projects have most people audited for their own sense of satisfaction about its security promises?
  - electic 13y ago
    Unfortunately, those skilled people at MS have let the NSA in on so many 0-day exploits. God knows how many have not been reported to the public yet. At least with open source, I know there is a community behind it for me or others to verify. Sure it is not 100% fool proof, but it makes it far harder to sneak bad things through.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > Sure it is not 100% fool proof, but it makes it far harder to sneak bad things through. Debian SSL bug lasted 2 years. Open source means little for security.
      - throwaway2048 13y ago
        cherrypicked examples mean little for arguements either. The WMF exploit was in windows for more than 15 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability
        DanBC 13y ago
        SSL is a security sensitive bit of code. That's the kind of thing that needs to be kept safe, and it's the kind of thing that people claim is kept safe my open source's many eyes. The argument I'm making is not that Windows is secure (because it isn't), but that Open Source isn't necessarily secure just because it's open source.
the_af 13y ago
I think the article glosses over Microsoft's security measures by design. It is consistent with the FSF's position that closed/proprietary source is inherently more insecure than open source because you cannot freely review (even if you have the technical knowledge to do so) whatever measures the authors say they implemented.
strlen 13y ago
It is very much related: closed source software isn't audited in the open. Core principle of building secure software is one must assume that their adversary has the source code and is actively building newer and newer attacks based on it (corporate leaks happen all the time). It's not impossible to follow through with this principle when building closed source software, but it is a lot easier to handwave it. I am not a fan of FSF's tone here, they could be more diplomatic -- but saying "we appreciate your effort, but you fail" would have been more insulting. I think there are many places for closed source software, but core privacy software is not one of those places. The encryption core (the critical pieces that either input or output plain text -- the places where the attack is more likely to succeed as opposed to the core of the algorithms), as well and the general platform should have the source code available (even if at a fee). That's not quite the FSF vision, but perhaps the powerful vision is needed (one can think of FSF's goals as a captivating utopian story that leads to more incremental improvements).
kkangaroo 13y ago
Yes, much of the announcement(which they seem to have purposefully not linked, I wonder how many commenters here have actually read it), has nothing to do with Windows but its about Cloud services like Outlook.com, Office 365, Skydrive and Windows Azure all of which can be used from Linux! Just like Google, they're now encrypting all data links.

obituary_latte 13y ago

No, I think in the FSF's eyes -- rightfully -- it can't be proven that security has improved. I also can't agree that it isn't related. If I tell you I'm wearing a green shirt, how can you know for sure if you or someone you trust hasn't verified it? You can't. It's the same with MSFT. But in the case of MSFT, it has been proven that they wear a lot of Hypercolor[1] stuff. Is it good that MSFT is doing stuff to make things more secure? Sure. Do we still have to take it on faith that they are doing everything they can to protect their users? Yup. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercolor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercolor

criley2 13y ago
So, Microsoft and its Windows product adheres to no industry standards, has no external audit process, has never been verified by a private or Government contract agency through audit or other verification process? I work in a small programming company and we do internal and external audits while maintaining compliancy with federal and state regulators as well as groups like ISO. Sure, our work is closed source, but that doesn't automatically mean it hasn't been externally verified for a number of different things by a number of different organizations...
- obituary_latte 13y ago
  No, I did not say those things. That aside, if you wanted to, after an audit/review concluded, could you put a backdoor in your software? Since it's closed source, would anyone know about it?
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    In deterministic build? It will be very hard. I doubt that any audit signs on anything other than specific versions.
    - throwaway2048 13y ago
      does microsoft use deterministic builds?
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    If there's a deterministic build process, in theory, the auditor would know something was up if the binary differed.
  - riquito 13y ago
    There are these things called signed binaries...
    - danbruc 13y ago
      But signing binaries does not prove from which source the binaries have been build, only who did it.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > Sure, our work is closed source, but that doesn't automatically mean it hasn't been externally verified for a number of different things by a number of different organizations... Yes, but we have to take your word for it.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    As mentioned below, a software being secure and the ability to convince yourself that a software is secure are two different things.
- belorn 13y ago
  Audit and verifying the security of software the size of Microsoft Windows without source code is like auditing and verifying the security of the international space station with only the help of a hand held telescope. Sure, it looks like its not leaking air. It has not dropped down to earth yet, and all the videos posted on their website looks to show it being fine. However, if I ever went there and depended on its security, I would demand more.
- the_af 13y ago
  If a piece of proprietary/close source software gets audited by an external agency, any of the private actors involved can be involved in deception (the authors of the software, the auditing company and the government or whatever). They can all be in collusion. This would have sounded like a conspiracy theory before recent discoveries, but now we've seen this can actually happen. Whereas if the source is open, and you are a subject matter expert (yes, that's a big if), you can review the source yourself. You can decide for yourself whether the software has an NSA backdoor, an innocent flaw or whatever. Yes, a lot of people, myself included, don't have the technical background to do this. But with open source we could, if we had the knowledge (which can be learned), without relying on potentially compromised authorities. With closed source we simply can't. We have to trust the auditors and the government, which have been shown to be unreliable.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

hansjorg 13y ago

Why would you place any amount of trust in a closed source privacy solution from a company with a history such as Microsoft's?

codezero 13y ago
Because they employ intelligent, skilled people who care and know more about privacy than I do. How many open source projects have most people audited for their own sense of satisfaction about its security promises?
- electic 13y ago
  Unfortunately, those skilled people at MS have let the NSA in on so many 0-day exploits. God knows how many have not been reported to the public yet. At least with open source, I know there is a community behind it for me or others to verify. Sure it is not 100% fool proof, but it makes it far harder to sneak bad things through.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > Sure it is not 100% fool proof, but it makes it far harder to sneak bad things through. Debian SSL bug lasted 2 years. Open source means little for security.
    - throwaway2048 13y ago
      cherrypicked examples mean little for arguements either. The WMF exploit was in windows for more than 15 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Metafile_vulnerability
      - DanBC 13y ago
        SSL is a security sensitive bit of code. That's the kind of thing that needs to be kept safe, and it's the kind of thing that people claim is kept safe my open source's many eyes. The argument I'm making is not that Windows is secure (because it isn't), but that Open Source isn't necessarily secure just because it's open source.

the_af 13y ago

I think the article glosses over Microsoft's security measures by design. It is consistent with the FSF's position that closed/proprietary source is inherently more insecure than open source because you cannot freely review (even if you have the technical knowledge to do so) whatever measures the authors say they implemented.

strlen 13y ago

It is very much related: closed source software isn't audited in the open. Core principle of building secure software is one must assume that their adversary has the source code and is actively building newer and newer attacks based on it (corporate leaks happen all the time). It's not impossible to follow through with this principle when building closed source software, but it is a lot easier to handwave it. I am not a fan of FSF's tone here, they could be more diplomatic -- but saying "we appreciate your effort, but you fail" would have been more insulting. I think there are many places for closed source software, but core privacy software is not one of those places. The encryption core (the critical pieces that either input or output plain text -- the places where the attack is more likely to succeed as opposed to the core of the algorithms), as well and the general platform should have the source code available (even if at a fee). That's not quite the FSF vision, but perhaps the powerful vision is needed (one can think of FSF's goals as a captivating utopian story that leads to more incremental improvements).

kkangaroo 13y ago

Yes, much of the announcement(which they seem to have purposefully not linked, I wonder how many commenters here have actually read it), has nothing to do with Windows but its about Cloud services like Outlook.com, Office 365, Skydrive and Windows Azure all of which can be used from Linux! Just like Google, they're now encrypting all data links.