Bias by overlooking fundamental flaws in binary-only operating systems

Summary: Targeting of the leading Linux-powered operating system attributed to a company controlled by many executives who came from Microsoft

Techrights has been writing about Juniper for almost half a decade, covering for the most part the influx of Microsoft executives joining that company [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] (some count as many 12 Microsoft executives entering Juniper), especially the very highest positions therein. There is yet more badmouthing of Android, which comes after previous Android FUD from the same company not too long ago (the end of last year). This generates press coverage even where Linux-focused writers dominate. To quote: "According to the new 2013 Mobile Threats Report from the Juniper Networks Mobile Threat Center, 92 percent of mobile threats are now targeted at Android. That's up from 47 percent in 2012."

How are those numbers being put together and measured? Why is there no scaling or normalisation based on share? Where are desktops? How is malware defined? If the user installs malware as a download from the Web and not through a trusted repository like Google Play, what does that count as? Many of these questions can be treated with great bias to say just about anything one wants about Android security. Google and non-Google professionals have repeatedly labeled such claims FUD. Other former Microsoft staff [1, 2] is doing the same type of thing, dedicating entire projects just to showing security threats in Android (whilst ignoring other platforms). They don't call out Windows and they dare not mention the danger which is NSA access (see the new post titled "NSA Built Back Door In All Windows Software by 1999" or confirmation that NSA is in bed with Microsoft). It is perfectly possible that NSA back doors are what enabled Stuxnet to be put on computers in Iran -- something which is not just a theory anymore. As one man put it for the uninitiated: "You may recall last year that the NY Times revealed details on how US intelligence created the Stuxnet virus and got it into Iranian computers, leading to screwing up Iran's nuclear enrichment program. There were some questions at the time about who leaked that information and how the Obama administration didn't seem to mind nearly as much when the leaks made them look good. However, given the siege mentality the administration appears to have about any kind of leaks, to the point at which the Defense Department directly claims that "leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," it appears that the administration may be looking to go after the leaker of the Stuxnet info."

The BBC covers this too right now. For an agency so ruthless and lawless, where everything is seen as permitted, even cracking and sabotage of computers in another country, this should not be off limits. There is an admission that they did this when they claim to have found a leaker, a 4-star general. Al Jazeera is having a field day with this unintended confirmation that the US cracked computers running Windows.

Reports say retired general is being probed for leaks linked to 2010 cyber attack on Iran's nuclear programme.

Maybe Juniper should put more focus on Windows back doors and their huge national security threat, not some petty 'malware' that Android users need to insist on installing, which is not easy by the way (actively discouraged by the operating system).

After the NSA leaks we must insist that security professionals take more seriously the immediate need to uncover back doors, such as this HP backup server back door. The debate needs to change. ⬆