Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Microsoft lashes out at Googler for making Windows vulnerability public
40hz:
Regardless of anyone's feelings about Microsoft, it's still extremely irresponsible for someone to do what that Google researcher did. Placing a can of gasoline and a book of matches on someone's front porch to make the case their house is at risk of catching fire is not the best way to warn people about flammability.
I'm sorry, but where does this guy get off increasing the risks to everybody using Windows just because he's annoyed Microsoft hasn't responded to his warning in what he considers an acceptable timeframe?
Paul Keith:
This is a case where I'm for Google hurting the competition because even if it's unprofessional, it's a stress test for Microsoft. You've pleased the techies now let's see how you buy back people's trust. How you react to cases like this.
-Paul Keith (June 12, 2010, 08:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
If this were just Google kicking MS I probably wouldn't care too much myself. But it's not, it's Google putting everyone in danger. And I really mean everyone! Holes like this are how worms spread, how bot-nets grow, and how mal-intentioned individuals can bring whole internet services to their knees, regards of what OS the victims are using. There are no excuses for Google in this one!
As for buying back non-techies trust, well buy is the word, isn't it? Non-techies only believe what they see in ads, Apple has proved that. No amount of actual good deeds or responsible actions really matter these days.
-Eóin (June 12, 2010, 09:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
Again, exactly. It's the exploit that needs to be emphasized and how a security engineer can't even picked to disclose a 0-day exploit without first providing a full workaround but instead the focus is how "Google has no excuse."
Who cares if Google has an excuse for kicking MS' butt?
The important issue is the security. Not about lambasting Google. Microsoft had a good opportunity of fixing their image instead they reacted in ways that play a fool of even techies.
...and it's such a disrespect towards both sides and such a disconnect that further destroys the real important issue.
Obviously you're stretching but now look where this article has lead to. Now you're stereotyping non-techies as Apple users and PC ignorants where there are legitimate people who simply don't know the technical depth of the problem but are curious about the real world implication of such act.
Now we're hate-choosing whether Google's actions are comparable to a bomb, a PoS, arson...I mean it's over. This is the damage these types of article does and I know this is just a repeat of what I have said and I apologize for being redundant. I'll stop replying now and I only did so as to emphasize my stance of this topic.
Eóin:
Microsoft had a good opportunity of fixing their image
-Paul Keith (June 12, 2010, 12:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
Actually the point repeated here over and over is that MS wasn't given an opportunity, 4 days is not enough. Or are you proposing an alternative approach to MS improving their security image other than by regularly and responsibly patching holes?
40hz:
All he had to do was share the code for the exploit with any of a dozen well respected security sites like Heise Online or CERN if he wanted to get traction. He did not have to broadband it out on the web. Which leads me to conclude part of his motivation was a distinct desire to create trouble for Microsoft when he did so. That's a move that has more in common with a daily tabloid than a computer professional. You don't deal with security issues by handing out copies of exploit code to anybody who wants it. Even a 14 year old Second Life script-kiddy knows that much.
Maybe I'm less inclined to take a philosophical perspective on the issue because I deal with computer security and malware on a daily basis as part if my job. The really annoying part is that this crap is time consuming and somewhat expensive to deal with whether it's as a preventative measure or as a decontamination issue. And it's a problem nobody needs - including people like me - who at least have the consolation of being able to make money helping get rid of it. I'd be perfectly happy if I never had to deal with cleaning up an infection or exploit for the rest if my life. And my services revenue stream and bottom line be damned! That's how sick I am of this stuff.
It's also important not to forget that malware and exploits are problems because people are writing and deploying them. And while Microsoft (or Apple, AT&T, et al) have some responsibility to their customers to help deal with this problem - they are not the ones who cause the problem. So let's not be too generous in overlooking the faults of the exploiters. The world needs operating systems. It does not need malware or criminal hackers.
So let's stop blaming the victims of these parasites. And that includes Microsoft.
Paul Keith:
Microsoft had a good opportunity of fixing their image
-Paul Keith (June 12, 2010, 12:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
Actually the point repeated here over and over is that MS wasn't given an opportunity, 4 days is not enough. Or are you proposing an alternative approach to MS improving their security image other than by regularly and responsibly patching holes?
-Eóin (June 12, 2010, 01:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, I am proposing one. A subtle but important alternative.
Fixing holes ISN'T an opportunity, it's a necessity. Microsoft would be worse if they're slow at fixing security holes but they are not better for doing what everyone expects of them to do in the first place.
If MS wants to truly improve their security image then focus on security and not mudslinging even if the other side is wrong this time. Let the commentors, the public outcriers, the techies...let them provide the "dim views".
If the media insists on a comment, just point it out from a security perspective.
This shouldn't be an "also", this should be what's it all about:
Reavey also criticized Ormandy for not being thorough in his analysis: “It turns out that the analysis is incomplete and the actual workaround Google suggested is easily circumvented.”
--- End quote ---
The other issue. The one with the obvious "Oh, doing it like this makes it dangerous for our customer." Take that out or at the very least, it should be the one included as an "also" for why the exploit should have been given ample enough time to fix.
Emphasize the security risk, not that you're butt hurt. In the context of details, sure it's sounds like I'm asking for a PC repairman to talk to me about the broken processor before the burnt out motherboard first but in the context of reducing sensationalism, magnetizing views on your new found focus for security and inciting techies to worry more about the security exploit rather than how wrong your competitor is now, that's the needed approach especially if you have a historical reputation as having poor security but more importantly engaging in FUD and EEE!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version