NOW that Facebook and Twitter are under siege by Windows zombies [1, 2] (it's not over yet), a lot of people are negatively affected, not just taxpayers and hospital patients. Hundreds of millions of zombie PCs are living proof that there is no end in sight, not as long as Windows remains ubiquitous on the desktop.
I thought that the massive DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks that knocked Twitter and other social networks out was because of Iran's government trying to shut down its protesters. I was wrong. Hundreds of millions of Internet users were annoyed because of Windows botnet-based DDoS aimed at one (1) person.
According to security company McAfee's director of security research Dave Marcus, "This was a very targeted attack, and what the research shows is that it was aimed at one particular person, and that person's accounts on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and LiveJournal." The target is a pro-Georgian blogger, but he's still just one man.
The cyberattacks Thursday and Friday on Twitter and other popular Web services disrupted the lives of hundreds of millions of Internet users, but the principal target appeared to be one man: a 34-year-old economics professor from the republic of Georgia.
"The fact that any security issue can be seen by thousands of eyes, in fact, makes it easy to find and fix security issues. If you got proprietary software, just because the security vulnerability may not be seen in the open doesn't make the code more secure," Kant told LinuxInsider.
--Dennis Fisher, August 7th, 2008
Comments
pinguinpat
2009-08-09 16:11:50
Maybe you could look to it this way: when a gas station sold fuel with lead in it, it would have been very normal because it was the normal stuff to sell.
If the same gas station would do the same thing today it would be sued it's ass of. Compare the situation with Microsoft: they start to sell operating systems in a period where internet didn't exist. Measurements against all kind of security issues where not needed (?) Today Microsoft still makes new software on a proven base thats insecure. Why didn't Microsoft change it's architecture long time ago? Why shouldn't they be kept responsible for there structurally failing of there software?? Is it really normal that they keep restaurating a new building before it's even build ??
zatoichi
2009-08-09 16:36:43
Well, I wouldn't use it, then. Plenty of people still do, however, and neither inarticulate comments, nor demands that they be free the way you tell them to, will keep them from doing so.
Why didn’t Microsoft change it’s architecture long time ago?
How would I know? Ask 'em.
Why shouldn’t they be kept responsible for there structurally failing of there software??
Because you agree not to hold them responsible when you install and use their software, if you choose to do so: that's what "no warranty" means. Just like with GPL-licensed software.
Always read the fine print.
zatoichi
2009-08-09 14:31:10
If your psychotic neighbor gets mad at you and cuts the brake lines on your car, and you crash into a wedding reception, you don't get to sue Ford, even though they designed the car in such a way that the brake lines were accessible.
Do you even think this stuff through before you publish it? (That was a rhetorical question, it's clear that the answer is "no".)
twitter
2009-08-09 15:33:18
zatoichi
2009-08-09 16:30:13
Well, if you think many enterprises are going to be dropping Microsoft because their employees were unable to use Twitter or Facebook, I'd have to say you're mistaken...
In point of fact, we haven't yet managed to get the majority of users off of Internet Exploder.
...the botnet problem will only get worse until Windows is gone.
Well, I'm sorry to have to tell you that, overall, Windows is not likely to be "gone" any time soon. You're tilting at windmills here, Señor Quixote.
The further sad fact is that, if your dream came true, and Linux systems suddenly represented a significant proportion of the desktop, the folks who write malware would certainly turn their efforts to subverting Linux systems, probably with some degree of success.
Just as with OS X, which is arguably a lot less secure than Vista, low market share affords a level of protection from exploitation: Linux systems don't represent an attractive or large enough target for anyone to want to take advantage of...
Needs Sunlight
2009-08-09 11:48:55
The topic of ditching M$ products was more widely discussed back then even though the situation was not as dire as it now is. Many M$ applications serve little purpose other than to lock end-users into the M$ stack and are more often than not little more than security holes masquerading as useful applications. It's not the products gone wrong, it's the people inside your company pushing these M$ products that have gone wrong. It's an H.R. problem when company employees push a political agenda that harms or destroys the company's ability to operate.
Look at the cost of these incidents. The cost of upgrading every last M$ chump on the planet in the course of 12 months to viable technology can't exceed more than a tiny fraction of the quarterly damage. M$ communism costs too much to keep around. Withdrawn the corporate charter and dozens of IT companies will take off: Oracle, Sun, Red Hat, to name a few.
So will just about every company or institution that currently uses either desktop computers, servers or both.
zatoichi
2009-08-09 14:33:53
That's idiotic. On what basis do you "ban" an entire company's line of (legal) products?
It’s good that the idea is being broached once again in this new decade, but too little action has been taken since the problems first were discussed last decade.
Nobody's "broaching" this idea, at least not anyone who thinks things through to see whether they, in fact, have anything to do with reality.
twitter
2009-08-09 15:15:57
zatoichi
2009-08-09 15:28:30
Name a few, please.
Generally products are forced off the market because they either represent a danger to life and limb (and I'm not sure how many people you want to claim have died as a direct result of using Microsoft software), or because they make illegal claims about what the product does.
Have you read the EULA? There's definitely some language in there (as in most software licenses) about not warranting the software for any particular purpose... Even the GPL contains such language.
So what are you talking about, Willy?
Needs Sunlight
2009-08-09 19:30:49
Even with the current 'legality' of M$ products, have you read the EULA? The blame rests squarely on those betraying their positions and promoting or deploying M$ products. Aluminum spanners would be legal, but a shop steward purchasing and, worse yet, deploying said spanners would be sacked. If not sacked the first time, the second or third time would involve needing the help of a proctologist to retrieve said spanners once the floor crew got done with them.
Oh, did you read the EULA? It may *not* be legal to deploy M$ products in situations where privacy is required. Clinics, hospitals, schools and military bases are out. HIPAA = no Windows.
Get rid of M$ products and your productivity goes up by 20%: Windows causes spam, Exchange causes lost mail, Office causes incompatible and corrupt documents, and then you have worms, worms, worms, and more worms. The savings from avoiding one single outbreak of a Windows worm, tens of billions of dollars, will more than cover any upgrade to Ubuntu or Red Hat plus development of a few custom applications.
It's legal to sell fertilizer. It's not legal to call it a dessert topping or a floor wax. The M$ EULA might as well say in big letters "FOR NOVELTY PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR DEPLOYMENT ONLINE"
phel
2009-08-09 13:04:50
Roy Schestowitz
2009-08-09 13:34:28
zatoichi
2009-08-09 15:32:37
Roy, plenty of people say WIndows is not secure. It's generally accepted that Windows systems are less secure than Linux systems. Are you claiming that Microsoft goes after everybody who does a story on Vista security issues?
All twenty-seven and a half million of 'em...?
zatoichi
2009-08-09 16:42:55
I don't think you understand the "tech media" terribly well. Aside from folks who have a vested interest in security issues (e.g. Bruce Schneier), the tech media has always been largely supported by the advertising largesse of the tech industry.
Systems and applications with inadequate security would not have been viable on the market had they been slaughtered in reviews across the board.
One additional issue here is that media product reviewers, by and large, understand security issues about as well as the general public does, i.e. not at all.
pinguinpat
2009-08-09 20:29:53
I did try to ask Microsoft about the architect problems but my cellphone ran out of power after a 3 hour call, I heard a friendly lady say "For Bill Gates pres" she didn't tell me the rest :(
About the license: imagine, I buy a laptop with Windows on it (I woke up in sweat when I had that dream) the license is OEM of course so I am the only possible owner if you read the license. Someone steals my machine (you stupid, it got Windows on it) and puts a botnet on it. Now you: hacking and stealing are the same things > someone takes over you're computer. What can a judge say? You bought a computer, you installed a intrusion alarm, you locked up your front door and you install updates automatically just like most users do. Microsoft judges exist, but what can an other judge say then: You agreed with the license, you're guilty: you have to pay a symbolic 500 million euro to twitter , I know you had a criminal visitor who exploited the top 500 bugs from Microsoft, but you were the only one that didn't run away in time??