Reliance On Microsoft A Danger To National Security

General discussion about PLUC and Linux in Pakistan.

Reliance On Microsoft A Danger To National Security

Postby if » Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:21 pm

Aslam-o-Aliakum,

Experts: Reliance On Microsoft A Danger To National Security
Microsoft Paid Mouthpiece at ACT Responds to Security Study
09-25-2003 11:24:00 AM CST -- gathered by the folks at Linux Today


As you may have gathered from recent headlines, there is a growing debate about whether Microsoft's dominant position in the marketplace represents a threat to global security. The folks over at Linux Today have joined together two articles which pretty well sum up both points of view in this argument. In the 'anti-Microsoft' camp are a bunch of security researchers and experts. Speaking on behalf of Microsoft is a mouthpiece, paid by Microsoft as their 'lobbyist'. You can draw your own conclusions... here are the two articles and their opposing arguments...

CRN: Experts: Reliance On Microsoft A Danger To National Security

"A panel of leading security experts Wednesday blasted Microsoft for vulnerabilities in its software, and warned that reliance on the Redmond, Wash.-based developer's software is a danger to both enterprises and national security.

"The group, which debuted its report at the first day of a two-day conference hosted by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), was headed by Dan Geer, the chief technology officer of @Stake, a security consulting firm.

"'As fast as the world's computing infrastructure is growing, vulnerability to attack is growing faster still,' said Geer..."

for complete story click here

Newsforge: Microsoft Paid Mouthpiece at ACT Responds to Security Study

"Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) president Jonathan Zuck has responded to the security study authored by well-known security experts and published by arch-rival group CCIA this morning. The ACT is funded primarily by Microsoft and two other firms: Orbitz and Ebay. Zuck often travels to testify against any legislation which might disrupt the status quo; they are perfectly comfortable with Microsoft's monopoly. This past summer, for example, he flew to Austin, Texas, in order to speak against state Senate Bill 1579, which mandated a study on the use of open source software in state government. His statement, which was entitled 'The Myth of the Monoculture: Why the CCIA Security Study is Just Another Thinly Veiled Attempt to Get the Government to Punish Microsoft and Give AOL and Sun a Leg Up' follows.

"On the back of his CCIA-funded security study, Ed Black is riding in with his own Marxist Government-mandated Software Security plan. Not surprisingly, the plan benefits CCIA’s own members like Sun Microsystems at the expense of Microsoft..."

for Complete Story Click here
if u find anything which shows my lack of knowledge,
please guide me... thx
------------------------------------
Aslam-o-Aliakum-Wa-Rahmatullah-Wa-Barakatuhu
------------------------------------
if
if
Battalion Quarter Master Havaldaar
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 12:52 pm
WLM: ifhope@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: hope_never@yahoo.com
Location: Islamabad

Postby zsindhu » Tue Sep 30, 2003 5:56 pm

I agree. Reliance on any one technology specially if you have absolutely no control over it, renders you impotent when it comes to security.

The sooner governments realise this, the better.

Come to think of it, I remember our own was qute enthusiastic about shifting to open-source and Mr. Javaid was hot on their case to get them to change their minds somehow.

Does anybody have a clue as to which way that initiative went?
Zahid N. Sindhu
CEO
Inspedium Corp. (Pvt) Ltd.
innovation with reliability
zsindhu
Cadet
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 5:59 pm
Website: http://www.inspedium.com
WLM: zsindhu@inspedium.com
AOL: zahidsindhu
Location: Karachi

Reliance On Microsoft A Danger To National Security

Postby mahin » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:20 pm

zsindhu wrote:Does anybody have a clue as to which way that initiative went?


Perhaps this may explain some thing. Mr Shahid Ansari said:

Quote: Please do not take me wrong if I would like to say at TReMU we cannot give a five year guarantee if the project itself has a limited life, it was for 14 months initially extended to 32 months which is around the corner, how can a project office give a 5 year guarantee when it itself does not have that much period to go forward. un-quote

Un-less I am missing some thing message is clear.
mahin
Major
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
Website: http://www.linuxpakistan.net/wiki/index.php/LinuxPakistanKarachi
Location: Karachi

Postby zsindhu » Tue Sep 30, 2003 6:37 pm

ah well!

that's that, I suppose ;)

Come to think of it, I have a great idea. Will be posting a new thread so that i don't polute this one 8)
Zahid N. Sindhu

CEO

Inspedium Corp. (Pvt) Ltd.

innovation with reliability
zsindhu
Cadet
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 5:59 pm
Website: http://www.inspedium.com
WLM: zsindhu@inspedium.com
AOL: zahidsindhu
Location: Karachi

Postby fawad » Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:19 pm

Oh, BTW, Dan Geer who headed the team who submitted the report .... Got sacked from @Stake. @Stake does security consulting work for Microsoft, but Dan Geer didn't purport to represent @Stake in that report.
fawad
Site Admin
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 8:00 pm
ICQ: 17672437
Website: http://www.fawad.net
WLM: fawadhalim@hotmail.com
Yahoo Messenger: fawad2048
AOL: fawadhalim
Location: Addison, IL


Return to “%s” General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron