OT: Microsoft & Viruses

I work in the security field of computers, specifically hacking (ethical), penetration testing, and
similar areas. Linux is my operating system of choice, however, I have used Microsoft for over a
decade as well. The bottom line is, NO operating system is secure. Period. If Linux were the most
prominent operating system on the planet, all the press you see and hear would be about Linux
vulnerabilities. Example, how many OS/2 vulnerabilities have you heard about in the last two years?
They are out there, and if every hacker in the world were trying to hack OS/2, then we would hear
about all the vulnerabilities. How about Netware? Many vulnerabilities exist, Netware has such a
small market share now that you just don't hear much about it. It is interesting that they are being
sued. In my opinion, the only way that ANY operating system will be truly secure is to hold the
company liable for damages. Imagine if auto manufacturers weren't held liable for their product?
There would be a lot more Firestone tires blowing up on the highway. As far as software licensing,
this area has been reviewed numerous times. Back in the early 90's, a lot of software companies had
license agreements that read "By opening up the contents of this package, you agree to the licensing
agreement enclosed within." Basically you had to be Carmack The Magnificent to read it ;-) That
license agreement was proven invalid in the courts. Just because you have agreed to something,
doesn't mean that it is a legal contract, so to speak. It can be tested in court, which in this case
it will be, to see if it is valid.

iLiad

"Jim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... Well it's happened. Someone has
filed suit against Microsoft for failing to design an operating system that is impenetrable.

I'm not an attorney but I'll venture a guess that the suit has a snowball's chance in hell of being
successful. After all we who use windows software don't actually own it, we merely lease it. Before
we have access to the software we have to accept an agreement releasing Microsoft from any problems.

But it got me to thinking, which then fired up my curiosity. So I checked out Microsoft's
financials. For the year ended June 30, 2003 Microsoft earned after taxes $9.993 billion. The year
that ended in June 30, 2002 they earned $7.829 billion. If they had taken the increase in earnings
between the two years and split it in half ($1.082 billion dollars). Took and hired about 15,000
talented hackers (working 40 to 50 hours a week just looking for Windows weak spots) for salary and
benefits equal to $70,000/year and spent the other half of the income increase on housing and
equipping those hackers. They could have probably discovered and plugged all those leaks in their
software packages that enable viruses to play havoc with the internet system.

Unfortunately I haven't figured out how Microsoft could contain those few employees who found a weak
spot and then released that information to outside hackers and virus developers.

Ramblings from a person perpetually disappointed in Microsoft's quality.

Jim

A friend of mine is a lawyer that deals with contract disputes. He's also not bad with a computer.
In his experience, he also said that the EULAs often aren't binding because it all hinges on "a
reasonable expectation" that the end user actually takes the time to read it. The EULAs are often so
long and convoluted that even the courts don't expect people to read them. I doubt any politicians
would go out of their way to go after MS and make them accountable for their O/Ss. I wonder what
MS's political contribution "numbers" are?

"iLiad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I work in the security field of computers, specifically hacking (ethical), penetration testing,
and similar areas. Linux is my operating system of choice, however, I have used Microsoft for over
a decade as well. The bottom line is, NO operating system is secure. Period. If Linux were the
most prominent operating system on the planet, all the press you see and hear would be about Linux
vulnerabilities. Example, how many OS/2 vulnerabilities have you heard about in the last

two

Quoted message said:

years? They are out there, and if every hacker in the world were trying to hack OS/2, then we
would hear about all the vulnerabilities. How about Netware? Many vulnerabilities exist, Netware
has such a small market share now that you just don't hear much about it. It is interesting that
they are being sued. In my opinion, the only way

that

Quoted message said:

ANY operating system will be truly secure is to hold the company liable

for

Quoted message said:

damages. Imagine if auto manufacturers weren't held liable for their product? There would be a lot
more Firestone tires blowing up on the highway. As far as software licensing, this area has been
reviewed numerous times. Back in the early 90's, a lot of software companies had license
agreements that read "By opening up the contents of this package, you agree to the licensing
agreement enclosed within." Basically you had to be Carmack The Magnificent to read it ;-) That
license agreement was proven invalid in

the

Quoted message said:

courts. Just because you have agreed to something, doesn't mean that it is

a

Quoted message said:

legal contract, so to speak. It can be tested in court, which in this case it will be, to see if
it is valid.

iLiad

"Jim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... Well it's happened. Someone
has filed suit against Microsoft for failing

to

Quoted message said:

design an operating system that is impenetrable.

I'm not an attorney but I'll venture a guess that the suit has a

snowball's

Quoted message said:

chance in hell of being successful. After all we who use windows software don't actually own it,
we merely lease it. Before we have access to the software we have to accept an agreement releasing
Microsoft from any problems.

But it got me to thinking, which then fired up my curiosity. So I checked out Microsoft's
financials. For the year ended June 30, 2003 Microsoft earned after taxes $9.993 billion. The year
that ended in June 30, 2002 they earned $7.829 billion. If they had taken the increase in earnings
between the two years and split it in half ($1.082 billion dollars). Took and hired about 15,000
talented hackers (working 40 to 50 hours a week

just

Quoted message said:

looking for Windows weak spots) for salary and benefits equal to $70,000/year and spent the other
half of the income increase on housing

and

Quoted message said:

equipping those hackers. They could have probably discovered and plugged all those leaks in their
software packages that enable viruses to play

havoc

Quoted message said:

with the internet system.

Unfortunately I haven't figured out how Microsoft could contain those few employees who found a
weak spot and then released that information to outside hackers and virus developers.

Ramblings from a person perpetually disappointed in Microsoft's quality.

Jim