07.19.21

Gemini version available ♊︎

Is Microsoft a National Security Threat?

Posted in FUD, Microsoft, Security at 5:09 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Reprinted with permission from Mitchel Lewis

Ransom infection vector

Despite entire industries and trade disciplines existing solely to manage Microsoft architecture and mitigate attacks against it, including a partner network consisting of 17 million+ IT professionals, 99% of all ransomware attacks still occur on Windows. Meanwhile, Microsoft architecture, including its cloud services, maintains a monopoly on botnet, brute-force, malware, phishing, virus, and zero-day attacks just the same. From individuals and small businesses to enterprises and government entities with unlimited IT budgets, everyone standardized on seemingly unsecurable Microsoft architecture are being phished, breached, exploited, and ransomed daily with no end to this in sight. Not even Microsoft is safe from this digital blitzkrieg, hence why they tell us to “assume breach”.

This isn’t to say that Linux OSs and macOS don’t see these attacks on their platforms though; they have and will again. Long-term savings and productivity advantages aside, they just don’t garner the same level of attack that Windows does, nor are they as likely to get exploited at the same rate as Windows when they are attacked. Put simply, Mac and Linux have a smaller attack surface and get to treat Windows like an umbrella against attacks due to its prominence in the OS space. Both of which are the two primary reasons why I maintain that the best thing that organizations can do to mitigate these attacks, for now at least, is to migrate away to macOS or a Linux-based operating system such as RedHat, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc.

With the above in mind though and when also accepting that there is no aspect of cyber, economic, environmental, homeland, human, and political security along with the security of our infrastructure and natural resources, national security if you will, that isn’t intricately dependent on Microsoft architecture, this reality alone is more than enough to warrant a discussion on whether or not Microsoft architecture is a consequent threat to national security. So, is Microsoft a threat to national security?


In order to answer this question, we first have to address why Windows and other Microsoft services are being breached so often in the first place. We have to see if they can be faulted for this present state, if there is another causal problem that’s beyond their control, or if anyone with their market share is destined to be a victim of their own success and dominance. And to be fair, not everyone will agree with my assessment above or below.

MalwareTech

For one and in response to a previous article where I suggested migrating to macOS and Linux to mitigate these aforementioned attacks, Michael Gillespie, and Marcus Hutchins (MalwareTech) seem to think that Microsoft architecture is exploited most frequently simply because it is the most prominent architecture and that migrating wouldn’t render you any less vulnerable. Put simply, they seem to think that differing attack surfaces are irrelevant to rates of exploitation and that macOS would be exploited at the same rate as Windows if the tables were turned with respect to market share.

Meanwhile, I’m not denying that that prominence is a factor, at all, I’m just saying that attack surface is on the same footing as prominence and that other solutions with smaller attack surfaces will be attacked and exploited at a lesser rate with the same market share which they disagreed with. However, it is also my stance that Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices aimed at obtaining and maintaining their dominant market share with low-quality products has further exacerbated this issue into what we have before us today; more on this later.

Why this matters to the question of whether or not Microsoft is a national security threat is simple. By suggesting that Microsoft is merely a victim of its own success and that anyone with their market share would see the same rate of exploitation, they’re also absolving Microsoft of responsibility for the present state of threat. But by suggesting that Microsoft’s galactic attack surface is equally responsible with their dominance for their security woes and that Microsoft wouldn’t be in the position they are in now if they had quality products that didn’t have to rely on anti-competitive practices to maintain market share, I’m naturally shouldering Microsoft with their share of the blame in the threat posed to America’s IT infrastructure at present.

One immediate problem with the prominence argument though is that those relying on it seem to resort to it in response to the suggestion of migrating to macOS or RedHat in an effort to mitigate attacks. If you really think about it though, this is irrational and shouldn’t discourage anyone from making the switch. Based on their own logic, Mac and RedHat users would still be much better off than Windows users so long as Windows remains dominant and continues to take all of the flak and function as an attack umbrella.

That said, I’m failing to see how this argument is relevant to their stance, how it invalidates my suggestion, or how it could discourage anyone from migrating to Mac or Linux so long as Windows maintains a dominant market share. If anything, those leveraging this argument seem to be unwittingly reinforcing my suggestion of treating Windows like an umbrella; all of which I’m totally fine with.

Another odd aspect of the prominence argument is that I have yet to see an actual post-mortem or a root cause analysis faulting the dominant market share of Windows as a causal reason for <insert any breach/exploit/ransomware attack here>. In fact, Microsoft doesn’t even take the prominence stance. Instead, their root cause analyses focus on the attack surface, mistakes/oversights, mitigation steps, etc. The anatomy of a breach is never reduced to “They hate us because they ain’t us.” by people who are actually paid to do RCAs for a living as Hutchins and Gillespie suggest; if only it were that simple.

Another major flaw in the prominence fallacy is that those invoking it are unwittingly implying that attack surface has no bearing on rates of exploitation or that the attack surface of each of these platforms is equal; which is bold to say the least. For one and given that attack surface is a function of the overall complexity of their infrastructure, no differently than ownership costs and instability, they might as well be suggesting that all platforms are equally stable with no variance in ownership costs; none of which could be further from the truth.

IBM chart

With Windows generating 3x+ the TCO that MacOS/Linux does, analysts can and do infer this is a reflection of disparity in relative complexity, attack surfaces, and stability because they all come hand in hand. Put simply, if one architecture generates significantly more ownership costs more to maintain over its lifespan than another, it’s rational to assume this is due to it being poorly engineered, consequently overly complex, and unstable; attack surface or otherwise. This is what software engineers refer to as software entropy.

And if they’re going to imply that attack surface doesn’t influence rates of exploitation then the onus is on them to support this stance with data and research. Just as complexity driving cost, instability, and attack surface is fundamental to engineers, so is a ballooning attack surface driving rates of exploitation. This is why engineers treat simplicity like their North Star. That said, great claims that run contrary to fundamentals and conventional wisdom tend to require great amounts of evidence; none of which has been furnished.

On top of lacking a fundamental precedent, yet another oddity of the prominence fallacy is that it lacks historical precedent. It’s important to remember that we’ve only lived in an Information Age with Microsoft at the top. We’ve never lived in a connected world with another OS dominating the market, it’s always been Windows. As such, to say that this would be the case for anyone at the top is a conjecture on its best day.

It’s almost scraping the barrel at this point, but yet another problem with the prominence fallacy is that it ignores how Microsoft obtained its dominant share of the market and why they had to resort to these tactics in the first place. Not only is it Microsoft’s modus operandi to rely on anti-competitive tactics to obtain and maintain a dominant market share, a monopoly if you will, they only have to rely on said tactics because their products couldn’t garner this market share on merit alone.

Natural selection applies to free markets in that the fittest products will naturally dominate a free market. That said, the best architecture would dominate a market naturally and wouldn’t need to resort to anti-competitive practices. And if Microsoft were the best in class, then they wouldn’t need to be optimizing their architecture for lock-in while bullying or buying out their competition at every avenue as they are today. They wouldn’t need to implore their partners to “create stickiness” by entrenching their products to further inflate switching costs.


All said, it’s safe to say that Microsoft is by no means a victim of their own success here so much as they’re a karmatic victim of their own anti-competitive practices and low-rent approach to software engineering; a digital Icarus complex if you will. There is much that Microsoft can do but doesn’t to simplify their products, shrink their attack surface, reduce ownership costs, reduce their rate of infection, and reduce the consequent threat that they present to America and the world. And to say that they aren’t complicit in the security threat that their architecture poses to America borders on the insane. But does the current level of threat that Microsoft poses constitute them as being a national security threat?

Although I’m not an expert in this regard, those that are have a few qualifying questions in order to really answer this question. IE, in order to classify Microsoft as a threat to national security, threat analysts would have to ask if Microsoft’s undue vulnerability and inorganic prominence mentioned above is a critical threat to our cyber, economic, environmental, homeland, human, and political security along with our infrastructure and natural resources.

Even Microsoft would claim that their architecture is detrimental to all of the aforementioned aspects of national security though. And given the extent of Microsoft architecture throughout personal, industrial, and governmental sectors and its rate of exploitation, it’s hard to see how Microsoft doesn’t expose all of these aforementioned categories to undue risk; a threat if you will.

Further, there is nothing to suggest that a platform with a smaller attack surface won’t have a lower rate of exploitation with the same market share while fundamentals and conventional wisdom suggest smaller attack surfaces lead to lower rates of exploitation. And as a consequence of this, it’s probably safe to say that Microsoft and its architecture is indeed a national security threat in comparison to less prominent Linux and Mac alternatives.

And given that ransomware and anti-trust has already been deemed a threat to national security, it’s not much of a stretch, at least in my opinion, to extend this classification to Microsoft when considering their history with anti-trust and monopoly on exploitation. Nor is it a stretch to suggest migrating onto modern platforms rather than crying about it to the competition exploiting weaknesses; no differently than we do with other critical infrastructure. This is why we rely on nuclear subs now instead of wooden ships.

It’s not a coincidence that the same countries exploiting the US as a whole, China and Russia, are the same countries moving to Linux as I’m typing this. It’s not just about cost-savings and productivity for justifying this move though. And mitigating the risk that Microsoft architecture poses to their national security also happens to be a primary motivating force behind their migrations. Maybe they understand something about Microsoft architecture that America is still slow to realize?

I digress, but even if my assessment above is wrong, prominence is all that matters, and Microsoft isn’t a national security threat, individuals and organizations alike are still better off abandoning the Microsoft ecosystem on any scale in favor of more modern alternatives for the foreseeable future. Although Microsoft gets a lot of criticism for the low quality of their products, hence the persistent updates (552 in 2021 thus far) and a revolving door of CVEs, few seem to see the genius behind them. Microsoft doesn’t need to maximize quality or even compete on that field of play when they can render entire organizations dependent on products of less quality.

Because of this, organizations relying on Windows will have a hell of a time migrating away from Windows and the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem which means that they’re naturally going to drag their toes in doing so; the bigger they are, the slower any attempt at a migration will go. In turn, this means that there is plenty of time for those that can easily migrate away from the madness and insecurity of the Microsoft ecosystem as a means of sheltering themselves from a barrage of attacks safely in the shadow of Microsoft for the time being.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 04, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 04, 2022



  2. Links 05/10/2022: PL/Haskell 1.0 and RapidRows 1.0 Released

    Links for the day



  3. Links 04/10/2022: Introducing NVK, Kueue, Stellarium 1.0, WordPress 6.1 Beta 3, and OpenSSH 9.1

    Links for the day



  4. Linux Foundation Events Now 'Run' by Linux's Biggest Foe

    The Linux Foundation expresses gratitude, upfront, to only one company: Microsoft



  5. IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 03, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, October 03, 2022



  6. Links 04/10/2022: Tor Project Board and Conflicts of Interest, More Politics

    Links for the day



  7. Microsoft Windows Sinks to Just 16% of the African Market

    As we noted yesterday, Windows is down sharply this month (27.1% market share worldwide) and the decreases are very significant in Africa, where Android (Linux-based) is spreading fast. Here’s a chart for Africa, showing Microsoft’s decrease to about 16%.



  8. IRC Widgets Working Again

    After turbulence and technical issues at KiwiIRC we've managed to get a semi-working solution or some workaround



  9. Trolled by Microsoft's Lennart Poettering and Bought by Wintel

    Last week’s public appearance by Torvalds seemed reluctant and a tad embarrassing (the media pointed out the awkwardness, too); whose idea was that, the Linux Foundation‘s?



  10. Links 03/10/2022: Git 2.38.0 and cinnabar 0.6.0rc1

    Links for the day



  11. Links 03/10/2022: OpenMandriva ROME Gold Candidate and IceWM 3.0.0

    Links for the day



  12. Members of the Administrative Council of the EPO Are Asked to Summon a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States Due to Violations of the Law

    The EPO has turned into a farcical operation that laughs at the law, abuses its own staff, and lies to both staff and "customers" in the official Web site



  13. European School The Hague (ESH) Faces a Crisis and Families of EPO Workers Are Harmed Profoundly

    The European School The Hague (ESH) is not functioning like it’s supposed to; people who migrated (seeking a job) along with family members for an EPO position aren’t pleased (to say the least) and they request if not demand to speak with EPO management



  14. [Meme] Lowering the Bar With Nations That Barely Have Any European Patents (Close to Zero)

    The EPO has totally lost the plot; it completely neglected its mission in pursuit of money and optics



  15. Links 03/10/2022: GNU Linux-Libre 6.0

    Links for the day



  16. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, October 02, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, October 02, 2022



  17. Update on SeaMonkey 2.53.14 and NoScript Crashes/Palefills Not Working

    Reprinted with permission from Ryan



  18. Links 03/10/2022: Linux 6.0 is Out

    Links for the day



  19. GNU/Linux and the GPL in Particular Are Under Attack Because They Spread Fast (Like a 'Cancer')

    The good news is that GNU/Linux continues to expand (widespread usage); the bad news is, it has come under a sheer magnitude of attacks and the media barely bothers to mention the obvious



  20. Windows Majority in Asia Down to Just Three Countries, All-time Low for Windows Worldwide This Month

    The decline of Microsoft Windows continues; sooner or later Android (Linux inside) will be dominant in almost every country in terms of its market share or number of users



  21. Links 02/10/2022: Debian on Firmware Policy and PostgreSQL 15 RC 1

    Links for the day



  22. Links 02/10/2022: KStars 3.6.1 and DjangoCon Europe 2022

    Links for the day



  23. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 01, 2022

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 01, 2022



  24. Fedora 37 and SeaMonkey 2.53.14

    Reprinted with permission from Ryan



  25. 'Linux' Foundation, While Hoarding Over $200,000,000 Per Year, Calls Itself 'Non-Profit'

    This video (10:55-11:28 above), which was published a few weeks ago, gives insight into how much money the Linux Foundation and its proxies raise per year while paying Jim Zemlin [cref =164412 probably about $1.4 million per year already] (because it’s all so charitable)



  26. GNU/Linux Rises to Record Highs in Africa This Past September

    According to this map and these latest plots (based on data from about 3,000,000 Web sites), Windows majority is long lost in Africa and (‘proper’) GNU/Linux usage keeps rising (not just Android, which uses Linux)



  27. Ongoing Efforts to Convince OSI to Drop the Microsoft Funding (Which Comes With Strings, Such as the OSI Attacking the GPL)

    It's becoming increasingly clear that buzzwords and hype get misused to misframe and distract from abuses; we're meanwhile trying to convince the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to drop Microsoft because it pays the OSI for a disinformation campaign (portraying large-scale GPL violations as "AI")



  28. Richard Stallman on Libre Software

    Richard Stallman on Libre Software from LispNYC on Vimeo.



  29. IBM's Lobbying for (and Stockpiling of) Software Patents is Ruining Fedora and GNU/Linux in General

    Fedora suffers from software patents, hence it removes features while IBM lobbies for such patents and gives software patents to patent trolls (in patent sales)



  30. Microsoft Doesn't Like Open Source; It's Badmouthing, Stereotyping, Attacking It (to Shift Blame)

    This week I found out that a dear old friend lost all his money (about 150,000 pounds) due to a Microsoft LinkedIn scam; watch how Microsoft blames unpopular nation states, “open source”, the victims, and attackers (basically anyone but Microsoft), just as it does when defects in its software go unfixed for months


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts