| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Aussies protest MS security advice | |
|
||
| Time: 12:59 EST/17:59 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Citing Microsoft's own somewhat patchy security record, Australian industry commentators have called into question the software maker's worthiness to advise the Federal Government on the country's cyber security policy. Recent industry reports have suggested that despite its being snubbed by US government officials during formulation of America's official cyber security efforts, Microsoft Australia is playing a key advisory role in relation to Australia's first cybersecurity framework. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:24:15 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 9/23/2002 1:44:27 PM |
|
This is a logical fallacy.
Microsoft's spotty record on security is not a result of poor security policy, but a result of two factors: 1.) Microsoft's codebase is massive, and the number of bugs in an application is directly proportional to the number of lines of code in that program. 2.) Microsoft's applications are under much more scrutiny than most other software companies. This means more people are trying to break the code, so more people *are* going to break the code. Does this mean Microsoft has ideal security policies? No. Does it mean they're off the hook when they screw up? No. It simply means that to say that Microsoft shouldn't advise the government on software security because they have themselves fallen victim to hackers is bass ackwards. They have a huge amount of experience in the matter. They have thousands of experts. In addition, their security policies are almost always sound... it's the USERS that don't follow them. (Nearly all security expolits would be rendered impotent if people read and understood the Microsoft security best practices document: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bestprac/bpent/bpentsec.asp) Has anybody here read "Writing Secure Code", a Microsoft Press book? I'm about 3/4 of the way through it, and it is excellent. Most people, even anti-MS people, agree it's the "bible" of code security. Microsoft's security problems are not a result of poor policy (and therefore wouldn't lead to poor advice), they're a result of a lapse in *implementing* their own policies. |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/23/2002 2:17:56 PM |
| It's an amazing book RMD. It has really opened my eyes. |
| #3 By 531 (208.241.173.124) at 9/23/2002 4:42:28 PM |
| Actually beeyp, all MS Engineers were required to go through multiple re-training sessions by the authors of the book to make sure that they understand secure coding principles. |
| #4 By 531 (64.109.30.187) at 9/23/2002 7:50:47 PM |
| yeah, I know... It was just really easy to prove the little bugger wrong this time, so I figured 'what the hell' :) |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/23/2002 8:39:03 PM |
| obviously nobody has seen me working with 9x, or they'd know how critical of microsoft i can be. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 9/24/2002 12:50:54 AM |
| Bob. I've been bitching and moaning about Win9x since about 1997. Agreed completely, what a complete piece of crud! Ok, granted, it ran games better until XP came along and it just depended on what was important to ya. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 9/24/2002 2:43:52 AM |
| Lol! I first used Windows95 in late '97. OK, so I was a slow adopter. Within a month I switched to NT 4 workstation. I've been an NT user ever since. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:24:15 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
