Microsoft uses secretly embedded code..

[voidmain]

http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2010-1071-958721.html

A far fetched concern? I believe this is a valid concern when you are talking about closed source proprietary code. Why should any other country (or even the U.S. citizens of which I am one) trust software where you have no ability to inspect it's inner workings? Go Linux!

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2010-1071-958721.html

A far fetched concern? I believe this is a valid concern when you are talking about closed source proprietary code. Why should any other country (or even the U.S. citizens of which I am one) trust software where you have no ability to inspect it's inner workings? Go Linux!

Shit M$ already reserves nearly half of it's API's, I wouldent be surprised if some of the functions were:

if(commie == true)
   M$InitMeltdown();

[Calum]

quote:Topic: Microsoft uses secretly embedded code..

Big news! of course they do!

[dbl221]

The Canadian spy agancy "CESIS" found out about a year ago that the enterprise software they purchased from a US company had backdoors built in.

Not far-fetched at all.

[pkd_lives]

quote: They'll use whatever system makes sense

At last a little common sense talk comming from the IT managers.

[Calum]

quote:The supreme irony is that American tech executives and government policy makers have squared off over a number of tech policy issues, such as exports of encryption technology and supercomputers.

That's not irony!!!! it's not even really relevant!

in fact: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=irony" target="_blank">    

quote:i

[fuckoffmicrosoft]

Eighteen months ago, Microsoft opened up its source code to large organisations. After years of pressure from the open-source movement, it gave 2,300 companies the chance to see the innermost secrets of the Windows operating system.

http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t479-s2122570,00.html

[voidmain]

Do you think they let them see *all* of the code?  I seriously doubt it.  And I would hardly call it opening the source because of the massive restrictions and having to sign their lives away before they can actually *see* any of the code.  Very few companies actually took M$ up on this offer because of the restrictions. And do you think that the ~200 companies that actually took Microsoft up on their offer can do anything with the code, like compile it and create their *own* Windows? Not quite.  

What this means is, they still have to get Windows in binary form from Microsoft, which of course means any holes/backdoors could be placed in Windows by Microsoft. There is no way to tell for sure that your copy of Windows does not have built-in backdoors unless you have compiled the entire OS yourself from source. And even then you can't be sure unless you actually are the one who wrote the compiler from scratch used to compile that code. And even still you must have compiled that compiler using a compiler known not to have it's own back door generating code which is pretty tough to do actually:

http://www.cs.umsl.edu/~sanjiv/sys_sec/security/back_door.html
http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/sec/2002/01374995.html

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Calum]

well it sounds like the Microsoft 'open source' nondisclosure licence is a undred times stricter (and more ludicrous) than the ones from AT&T that prompted RMS to set up the free software foundation.

It sounds like Microsoft only did this to say that they do allow people to view their code, if it comes up in a court of law.

[voidmain]

That's part of the reason. The other part is that since very few companies took them up on their offer they can say "see, no one really wants to see the source code, OSS is a farce". I certainly wouldn't want to see M$ code, however, I also wouldn't really consider it OSS.

[fuckoffmicrosoft]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
Do you think they let them see *all* of the code?  I seriously doubt it.  And I would hardly call it opening the source because of the massive restrictions and having to sign their lives away before they can actually *see* any of the code.  Very few companies actually took M$ up on this offer because of the restrictions. And do you think that the ~200 companies that actually took Microsoft up on their offer can do anything with the code, like compile it and create their *own* Windows? Not quite.  

What this means is, they still have to get Windows in binary form from Microsoft, which of course means any holes/backdoors could be placed in Windows by Microsoft. There is no way to tell for sure that your copy of Windows does not have built-in backdoors unless you have compiled the entire OS yourself from source. And even then you can't be sure unless you actually are the one who wrote the compiler from scratch used to compile that code. And even still you must have compiled that compiler using a compiler known not to have it's own back door generating code which is pretty tough to do actually:

http://www.cs.umsl.edu/~sanjiv/sys_sec/security/back_door.html
http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/sec/2002/01374995.html

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

lost me                    :confused:

[Calum]

what he's saying is that if they could compile the source code themselves, they would be able to take out all the backdoors they could find before doing so. But since they can only read it, not use it, they cannot do that even if they spot something.

Also, there is no way (if they can't compie it themselves) to actually make sure that the copies of windows they are running were actually compiled from the same source code they have been given to read through. Unless they spot some glaring error where one version can do something the other can't...

[fuckoffmicrosoft]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
what he's saying is that if they could compile the source code themselves, they would be able to take out all the backdoors they could find before doing so. But since they can only read it, not use it, they cannot do that even if they spot something.

Also, there is no way (if they can't compie it themselves) to actually make sure that the copies of windows they are running were actually compiled from the same source code they have been given to read through. Unless they spot some glaring error where one version can do something the other can't...

ooohhhhh

 

[HPC GUY]

Microsoft even said it themselves they only released about 45% of the source code and its read only. it is to be used strictly for debugging and even that much has only been issued to key organizations.