Comment of the Day - January 3, 2006 -

So keeping Windows insecure, causes it to become virus and spyware ridden...

And also makes it easy to steal identities, bank account info and so on.

Yes, it is deliberate.

It's so that when they try to bring in the "cashless society / just have this little chip implanted and all this ID theft and insecurity will disappear" people will flock to it.

There are times when I think that the functionality of Windows is a front for the intelligence gathering part that occurs in the background. And then there's days when I get paranoid...

I can't say with certainty that it is deliberate, but when no barriers exist it seems like it would a temptation.

Well, I was mostly kidding with this comment to begin with. However, it is true that the situation really doesn't give them any incentive to actually fix the problems, while it gives them a mild incentive not to.

-> Fritz

MS in colaboration with the NSA.... Naw... How could that be possible? ;-)

In the beginning security was sacrificed for convenience, there is no proof that they ever knew or cared to know how to write secure code.

While I believe that the insecure code in not deliberate, I believe that the lack of effort to fix it is !

If the product sells, the corporation that makes the product has no reason to improve or change the product.

They might talk about security. They might change their sales pitch a little. But as long as the product sells, there is no incentive for the corporation to spend one dime to improve the product.

If the product sells and generates several hundred % profit, allowing the corporation to fund 6 of 8 divisions that are losing money, and still end up with an 80% profit margin the coprporation would be foolish to change the product.

Microsoft sells crappy software because people are willing to buy it. I'm hoping that consumers wise up.

It happened to Chrysler in the seventies, it could happen to Microsoft now.

Interestingly, Sun Solaris 2.4 was a popular OS and was a security nightmare. In their case, they had no agenda for creating lousy software. At the time, few people could crack a site and few people were online.

Solaris 2.6 became rather tight from a secuirty point of view.

Gates didn't think about the Internet until 1995 and he never tightened up his software. Even today, what MS calls security is a firewall which from the point of view of an OS like OpenBSD is back asswards.

Who knows if MS has discovered weak security creates revenue opportunities. I have heard that when they meet to discuss issues that the first question they ask is "can we monetize this?".

If that's the case and I'm not saying it is, then they would certainly look at the monetary benefits and if they were there, they'd go with it.

So, the assumptions made in the comment aren't all that off if monetizing problems is the goal.

"Windows XP Home coming up short

Windows XP Home is another story. As a consumer product, it suffers from two policy deficiencies. First, consumer products do not qualify for Extended Support, but instead move directly into the online support phase after Mainstream Support ends. Second, whereas business products are guaranteed Mainstream Support for two years beyond the release of the next subsequent version of a product (in this case, Windows Vista), consumer products do not get this built-in transitional period. The end result is that Windows XP Home will leave Mainstream Support and enter online support on January 1, 2007—in less than a year.

When that day comes, XP Home users may feel left out in the cold, because they will no longer qualify for security updates, and will not be able to purchase support from Microsoft." http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060103-5891.html

Interesting observation. Poor home users. wonder if they will even let someone activate a copy of home if they have to replace hardware.

"Older versions of Windows – Windows 98, 98 Second Edition and Millennium Edition – are going unpatched. While these versions of Windows do contain the affected component, Microsoft said the vulnerability is not critical because an "exploitable attack vector" has not been identified that would justify a critical severity rating. Microsoft will only release updates for "critical" security issues on these dating operating systems. Users still running Windows NT and pre SP 4 versions of Windows 2000 also get nothing because these have reached the end of Microsoft's mandated support lifecycles. Instead, Microsoft has advised users to upgrade to later editions of Windows" http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/01/06/microsoft_wmf_vu...

quote: "Consider your threat scale duly recalibrated. And pack your own parachute, because Redmond ground control just wants you to cut the radio chatter -- and die without making a fuss." http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/eweek_labs/archive/2006/01/06/40...