4 ms·

These guys are focusing narrowly on your choice of words ("delay fixes"). It was outed by the Guardian that Microsoft actively circumvents the security of some

These guys are focusing narrowly on your choice of words ("delay fixes"). It was outed by the Guardian that Microsoft actively circumvents the security of some major products (Outlook, Skype) for the NSA. The Guadrian never released the Snowden doc for Microsoft collaboration [0]. Therefore, we don't the specifics of how. We just know that Microsoft backdoors its products for the federal government without telling its customers. "Microsoft helped the NSA to circumvent its encryption to address concerns that the agency would be unable to intercept web chats on the new Outlook.com portal;" [1] [0] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/355391355939340288 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/355391355939340288 [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...

tptacek 13y ago
No, you just introduced an entirely different concern than the one introduced by the thread. The root comment suggests that Microsoft arranges to provide NSA with vulnerabilities that they deliberately do not patch so as to maximize their value to NSA. There is no evidence that anything like this has ever happened. Your message is a red herring; I could debate your conclusions, but what would be the point? I'm sure you've got 10 more red herrings up your sleeve.
- balthazar 13y ago
  My message is not a red herring. I did not make any conclusions of my own for you to debate. I was trying to add context (note that I replied to fit2rule, I wasn't challenging you). I quoted the Guardian and gave the reason there is no public Snowden document on the Microsoft NSA issue. Therefore, we don't know the specifics of their collaboration/cooperation. I do not dispute what you said about delayed patches, but it is meaningless without that context. To be fair, there is not much daylight between: 'The root comment suggests that Microsoft arranges to provide NSA with vulnerabilities that they deliberately do not patch' and what the Guardian reported about Outlook. At least to me, but I'm not a security expert. Is it not considered a 'vulnerability' if Microsoft hands over the keys so to speak? Also on a side note, it is rude to call me out like you did. I don't have herrings up my sleeves. I don't care about internet points. I just wanted to contribute more information to the discussion.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No, that would not be considered a "vulnerability" in the sense used on this thread.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      Is the user more - or less - vulnerable to an attack? You're quite the pedant, whoever you are ..
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I'll happily accept this as an admission that you don't have a source to back up your original (extraordinary) claim. Thanks.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        Hey, so you don't understand words. I get it. Thats quite a vulnerability you've got there.

tptacek 13y ago

No, you just introduced an entirely different concern than the one introduced by the thread. The root comment suggests that Microsoft arranges to provide NSA with vulnerabilities that they deliberately do not patch so as to maximize their value to NSA. There is no evidence that anything like this has ever happened. Your message is a red herring; I could debate your conclusions, but what would be the point? I'm sure you've got 10 more red herrings up your sleeve.

balthazar 13y ago
My message is not a red herring. I did not make any conclusions of my own for you to debate. I was trying to add context (note that I replied to fit2rule, I wasn't challenging you). I quoted the Guardian and gave the reason there is no public Snowden document on the Microsoft NSA issue. Therefore, we don't know the specifics of their collaboration/cooperation. I do not dispute what you said about delayed patches, but it is meaningless without that context. To be fair, there is not much daylight between: 'The root comment suggests that Microsoft arranges to provide NSA with vulnerabilities that they deliberately do not patch' and what the Guardian reported about Outlook. At least to me, but I'm not a security expert. Is it not considered a 'vulnerability' if Microsoft hands over the keys so to speak? Also on a side note, it is rude to call me out like you did. I don't have herrings up my sleeves. I don't care about internet points. I just wanted to contribute more information to the discussion.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, that would not be considered a "vulnerability" in the sense used on this thread.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    Is the user more - or less - vulnerable to an attack? You're quite the pedant, whoever you are ..
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'll happily accept this as an admission that you don't have a source to back up your original (extraordinary) claim. Thanks.
      - fit2rule 13y ago
        Hey, so you don't understand words. I get it. Thats quite a vulnerability you've got there.