RSSMicrosoft to Brief Governments on Security Threats
By Nate Mook | Published February 2, 2005, 2:48 PM
In an effort to fend off the growing threat of governments considering open source software due to continued security flaws in Windows, Microsoft has launched a new initiative to keep governmental organizations in the loop. Through its Security Cooperation Program (SCP), Microsoft will provide information on vulnerabilities not yet available to the public.
The SCP is intended to open lines of communication between Redmond and government officials to "address threats to national security, economic strength and public safety." Governments will receive warning of critical security incidents, advanced notice of Microsoft software updates, as well as details of Microsoft's approach to fixing problems.
"By taking a collaborative approach with global governments, we can bring to bear the combined expertise from public and private sectors and enable governments to better prepare, manage and mitigate the impact of security incidents," said Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president for the worldwide public sector at Microsoft.
Thus far, Canada, Chile, Norway and the state of Delaware have signed up to the program. The SCP is offered free of charge and follows the Government Security Program, which was launched two years ago to provide governments access to Windows and Office source code.
"The Digital Age creates some unique challenges for governments to help secure their computing environments," said Elliott.
Microsoft briefing the government on security. Gee, I feel safer already.
Score: 0
|Talking about goverment (United States) alphabet soup agencies that want solutions to problems faster than you can know it's even there. This is not about what supports games better or if you think you really do know why Windows has alot of security flaws...this is about some serious information floating back and fourth. You know, things that maybe peoples lives depend on. Not the playing field for OpenSource, everything would have to be sealed from public access and written and tested behind closed doors for specific users.
Score: 0
|"Not the playing field for OpenSource, everything would have to be sealed from public access and written and tested behind closed doors for specific users."
That completely contridicts the article. so you mean that "the growing threat of governments considering open source software..." is false?
Score: 0
|Essentially Microsoft is saying "let's be friends and I'll be open with you". Can anybody explain how it can possibly beat the Open Source philosophy: "regardless of whether you are my friend or not, I will be fully open with you"?
More at: http://www.noirextreme.com/node/56
Score: 0
|open source software has critical updates sooner that MS would be able to inform government about problems. Who cares who is informed first. As long as we are using proprietary software, we will be facing big risks. Other than the security of open source, it's all free. Some software is better than all payware alternatives.
OpenOffice.Org may not be better than MS Office apps as far as features, but between paying $0 and paying at least $150 for an office suite - OpenOffice.Org is perfect for the average Joe. It might take a little getting used to, but not much. I'd rather spend a little time than a lot of money.
Score: 0
|well said. paying more doesent always mean getting more. more often than not, paying more simply means you are paying on a major names noteriety in the marketplace
Score: 0
|I am sorry but putting Microsoft and security into the same sentence and not talking about some new Windows exploit is just plain funny. I cant take anyone serious at Microsoft who talks about security. I use Windows as my main OS and Linux as a play OS since to me it is not ready for mainstream use (mostly due to drivers and the bells and whistles I have in Windows) along with good dame support.
Score: 0
|but not paying anything doesn't mean quality either, so your point is moot.
Score: 0
|windows will always be the one to have game support, especially if the games you play are pay-ware. Games see what majority OS users have, and design their games for that OS, wheather it's Win, Mac, or GNU/Linux.
Whatever you want avail for your Linux box, I suggest sending e-mail/snailmail to the companies and tell them your situation.
As far as hardware, many vendors dont really care to pay for support. If you can, use VIA chipset hardware, as they do inherrantly support Linux. Many hardware vendors say "we dont want to pay to support linux and dont have any intention to... We'll be happy to give you info to build support yourself." How #$%&ed up is that! Again, VIA chipset is the way to go.
Score: 0
|no, the point isnt moot. the point I was making was you pay big bux for garbage when you can get good stuff free. Not saying perfect stuff, but def better than anything Redmond has to offer.
*nix isnt user friendly as windows is... so ? learn how to use your computer rather than adding to ms's pockets and doctors pockets as they preform more and more needless surgery for mouse cliking carpal tunnel lamers. If 1% of the computer using world actually knew how to USE their computer I would be amazed
Score: 0
|honestly the only good thing that i've seen come out of the *nix base it OS X. sure nix makes great hardened servers, but then again so do windows and even macs. but the mac actually put a GUI on the OS and they did a really nice job of it. and you can still drop to a terminal to run bash/tsh which allows you to use configure/make/install open source projects like fink or anything else you can pull from CVS/SVN.
but a point i was making in another thread was that if there are multiple versions of a product, one that's easy to use and one that's not, people will pay for the one that's easy to use. linux needs to get out of the hands of developers and into the hands of some UI designers if they want the mass public to use them. MS and Apple have spent millions on usability and they produce what people generally want. linux's userbase are primarily computer savy people so the GUI is fine with them (or they just accept it as is). if linux wants to make the crossover, the design will need to change.
Score: 0
|some security with microsoft is better than the lack of any security with open source. remember we are talking about national security, not whether lazy people want to pay for office or not. i think it is worth paying to prevent critical information from getting out. microsoft at least attempts to provide secure programs.
Score: 0
|besides if 90% of linux users werent such cheapskates then they would actually pay for windows too
Score: 0
|cheapskates?
Imagine a world where people work for joy of helping others. Your car breaks down and another person pulls over to help you out, give you a ride to the next town so you can make a phone call. You take out $20 to say thanks. To your surprise, the $20 is not accepted. That person feels that a good deed would no longer be a good deed if he takes money for it. That my friend, is what Open Source is all about. We don't ask for money helping you out, espec if it doesn't cost us anything more, and we wont get you there faster for offering more money - we are offering a free service, you get it for free so dont complain.
Score: 0
|"some security with microsoft is better than the lack of any security with open source."
That is true, but I can mix and rhyme too, watch this:
some security with open source is better than the lack of any security with microsoft.
That is true too, funny how that works. You are not saying opensource is insecure, but if it were, then ms would be better. They both have security. Point is, opensouce is often found, fixed, and updates are avail much quicker. People that arent even part of the developers submit fixes for software.
Score: 0
|