Take a look at The Register's take on it (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23715.html): "'So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security.' "Sounds great, but then he goes completely off the rails: 'A good example of this is the change we made in Outlook to avoid email borne viruses.' "Hello? Earth to Bill -- it took years of grinding public humiliation for MS to make a simple modification preventing malicious executables from launching automatically in Outlook. If this is Gates' idea of a security job well done, then all we have here is another PR smokescreen." I agree...(and yes, this is sent from a MS mailer--if anybody has had any luck getting the serial ports to work on VMware, please send me a message off-line) Thanks, James Spinti jspinti at dartdist dot com 952-368-3278 ext. 396 952-368-3255 (fax) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Sherman" <dsherman at real-time.com> To: "TC-LUG" <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [TCLUG] Microsoft Makes Software Safety a Top Goal > On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 10:21, Paul Overby wrote: > > You will probably need to create a login to view this but thought I'd pass it > > on for anyone who cares. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/technology/17SECU.html?todaysheadlines > > > > At least it suggest that micosoft is feeling a little pressure which is the > > only way we are going to get better products from them. > > I wouldn't hold your breath. To paraphrase Bruce Schneier, Microsoft > does not treat security as a software quality problem, they treat it as > a public relations problem. Until they start treating it as a software > quality problem, we will continue to see these sorts of problems > (referring to the recent holes found in all versions of IE, from 4.0 on > up). > > While Gates' email memo may have the look and sound of addressing > security as a software quality problem, it is really just a tool to > continue treating security as a PR problem. Else, why send the thing out > to all the major media services? > > MS has a well-deserved reputation for being liars. With every new OS > release, they claim that it is "vastly more secure" than the previous > release, just like they claim it is "vastly more stable" than the > previous. Well, Win2000 and XP *might* be more stable than previous > releases of NT (and I have heard conflicting stories/opinions on that -- > my own experience says they are more stable), but the recent IE hole > proves that on the security front, at least, MS are still liars. > > I subscribe to the philosophy of "show me, don't tell me". I know enough > about Gates, Ballmer, etc., to take everything they say with a BIG grain > of salt, and hold my own opinion until I see evidence that what they are > telling me is true. Thus far, they have let me down almost every time > (the exception being that Win2000 appears to actually be more stable > than NT). > > Dave > -- > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and good > with ketchup. > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >