[News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows - Linux

This is a discussion on [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows - Linux ; On 02 Apr 2008 22:28:19 GMT, DanS wrote: > "chrisv" wrote in news:47f402cd$0$9881$c3e8da3 > @news.astraweb.com: > >> DanS wrote: >>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote in >>> news:ixzrt4mecul7.1y1jqlqiaw86q.dlg@40tude.net: >>> >>> No comments on my post about Windows users losing market share over ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

  1. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    On 02 Apr 2008 22:28:19 GMT, DanS wrote:

    > "chrisv" wrote in news:47f402cd$0$9881$c3e8da3
    > @news.astraweb.com:
    >
    >> DanS wrote:
    >>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote in
    >>> news:ixzrt4mecul7.1y1jqlqiaw86q.dlg@40tude.net:
    >>>
    >>> No comments on my post about Windows users losing market share over
    >>> the last 3 years and Linux use doubling ?
    >>>
    >>> I didn't think so.

    >>
    >> Here's a comment: Bull****e!
    >>
    >> Appropriate don't you think?

    >
    > No I don't. We're not talking just the Vista share....we are talking all
    > Windows.
    >
    > Here....the trend graph from the same site...
    >
    > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...&qpdt=1&qpct=4
    > &qptimeframe=M&qpsp=87&qpnp=24#
    >
    > The trend graph doesn't go back as far as individual months, but the trend
    > is still there, and nearly just as big anyway.
    >
    > So there you go. This is the same site that is relied on for showing
    > declining Linux numbers and taken as gospel by some, so there is no way you
    > can argue it being correct for Linux but mistaken for Windows.


    You can pick just about any site you want and you will come up with Linux
    having somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.6 percent of the desktop
    (browsing).
    The BBC for example has it at 0.8 percent.

    So all of these sites are wrong ?

    I don't think so.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  2. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    ____/ Robin T Cox on Wednesday 02 April 2008 18:25 : \____

    > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:15:50 -0700, Darth Chaos wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquir...09/government-

    > spooks-helped-microsoft-build-vista
    >>
    >> Excerpt:
    >>
    >> Microsoft is not the only one to tap the spooks. Apple, with its Mac OSX
    >> operating system, and Novell with its SUSE Linux also asked the NSA what
    >> it thought of their products. The NSA is quite good at finding weapons
    >> of mass destruction that are not there.
    >>
    >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/01/08/

    > AR2007010801352.html
    >>
    >> Excerpt:
    >>
    >> For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the help
    >> of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on foreign
    >> officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the Bush
    >> administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it has
    >> helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new operating
    >> system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from worms, Trojan
    >> horses and other insidious computer attackers.

    >
    > LOL that's brilliant! With friends like the NSA who needs enemies?
    > Obviously the NSA are as incompetent as the rest of the Bush
    > administration.
    >
    > However, it's nice to know that MS are so closely tied into them.


    I think that for this reason the Chinese government wanted to build its own
    Linux. It goes back to something I read about two years ago, so I can't find
    the source or recall it precisely. In years to come, it will be natural for
    governments to require full control of the source code they compile, not just
    what they are allowed to view (they viewed Windows source code).

    These things are complicated and production of software cannot be entirely
    separate from politics at a higher level (that's just what they want you to
    believe though). Ignorance is bliss.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | GPL'd Othello: http://othellomaster.com
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Cpu(s): 25.5%us, 3.7%sy, 1.0%ni, 65.0%id, 4.5%wa, 0.3%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
    http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

  3. How is a 10 year old story you know is false "news", Roy?

    In article ,
    Robin T Cox wrote:

    > http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1128.html


    10 year old story, which you *know* is false. How is this news?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    In article ,
    Linonut wrote:
    > > Yet you tought the NSA developed SELinux as a great thing.
    > >
    > > Hypocrite.

    >
    > Since when is Windows open-source?
    >
    > Oh, I forgot, you hate open-source and its proponents.


    You seem to have confused "not open-source" with "source code is not
    available". Just because *you* don't have access to the source code
    doesn't mean that many neutral third-parties have not been given access.

    > The link above:
    >
    > Microsoft said this is not the first time it has sought help from the
    > NSA. For about four years, Microsoft has tapped the spy agency for
    > security expertise in reviewing its operating systems, including the
    > Windows XP consumer version and the Windows Server 2003 for corporate
    > customers.
    >
    > This is a good thing. But how will we know there are no back-doors? We
    > can't vet the code (without a non-disclosure agreement). And, when you
    > read this:


    Same way we do with open source--ask third parties who have reviewed the
    code. The only difference is that with open source, we can do a review
    ourselves, if we are competent to do so, but most of us are not, so we
    have to rely on the third parties.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  5. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:47:53 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > Yet you tought the NSA developed SELinux as a great thing.
    >> >
    >> > Hypocrite.

    >>
    >> Since when is Windows open-source?
    >>
    >> Oh, I forgot, you hate open-source and its proponents.

    >
    > You seem to have confused "not open-source" with "source code is not
    > available". Just because *you* don't have access to the source code
    > doesn't mean that many neutral third-parties have not been given access.


    Having access to the source does not mean it is Open Source.(snip)
    --
    Rick

  6. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote in
    news:1iitt998wccbv$.i8vx22xed99v$.dlg@40tude.net:

    > On 02 Apr 2008 22:28:19 GMT, DanS wrote:
    >
    >> "chrisv" wrote in
    >> news:47f402cd$0$9881$c3e8da3 @news.astraweb.com:
    >>
    >>> DanS wrote:
    >>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote in
    >>>> news:ixzrt4mecul7.1y1jqlqiaw86q.dlg@40tude.net:
    >>>>
    >>>> No comments on my post about Windows users losing market share over
    >>>> the last 3 years and Linux use doubling ?
    >>>>
    >>>> I didn't think so.
    >>>
    >>> Here's a comment: Bull****e!
    >>>
    >>> Appropriate don't you think?

    >>
    >> No I don't. We're not talking just the Vista share....we are talking
    >> all Windows.
    >>
    >> Here....the trend graph from the same site...
    >>
    >> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...&qpdt=1&qpct=4
    >> &qptimeframe=M&qpsp=87&qpnp=24#
    >>
    >> The trend graph doesn't go back as far as individual months, but the
    >> trend is still there, and nearly just as big anyway.
    >>
    >> So there you go. This is the same site that is relied on for showing
    >> declining Linux numbers and taken as gospel by some, so there is no
    >> way you can argue it being correct for Linux but mistaken for
    >> Windows.

    >
    > You can pick just about any site you want and you will come up with
    > Linux having somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.6 percent of the
    > desktop (browsing).
    > The BBC for example has it at 0.8 percent.


    And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and the reason
    you pick this one is because it the lowest rating for Linux of any of
    them, that I have seen.

    > So all of these sites are wrong ?
    >
    > I don't think so.


    I didn't say anything about it being wrong.

    What was interesting is that the MS share has dropped 4+ percent in the
    past 3 years, and the Linux share has doubled in the same time period.

    MS is losing shares and Mac & Linux are picking them up. That's all I'm
    saying.

    So yeah I guess the numbers at that site are accurate.

  7. Re: [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    Ignoramus25047 wrote:
    > This is old news, though true.
    >
    > Relying on Windows for real security (like if you have something very
    > serious to hide) is just insane.


    Crazy insane, like relying on Linux for real security?

    "The Ubuntu community had to yank five of the eight Ubuntu-hosted community
    servers sponsored by Canonical offline Aug. 6 after discovering that the
    servers had been hijacked and were attacking other machines."

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Ub...Launch-Attack/




  8. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    DanS wrote:
    >
    > And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and the
    > reason you pick this one is because it the lowest rating for Linux of
    > any of them, that I have seen.


    Please list them. I don't believe linux has that penetration; actually, I
    question the .6% representing actual desktops _using_ linux. Maybe they're
    counting downloads whether they are being installed and used, or not.



  9. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows



    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:47f44e49$0$9900$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > DanS wrote:
    >>
    >> And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and the
    >> reason you pick this one is because it the lowest rating for Linux of
    >> any of them, that I have seen.

    >
    > Please list them. I don't believe linux has that penetration; actually, I
    > question the .6% representing actual desktops _using_ linux. Maybe they're
    > counting downloads whether they are being installed and used, or not.
    >


    I would imagine linux.org would have a high percentage of linux browsers..
    pretty much meaningless if you choose your sites with care. To stand any
    chance of being correct you need to use a site like the bbc that has content
    that appeals to all. This allows anyone to argue which figures are correct
    if they don't like them. It is a no win situation.


  10. Re: [News][Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:59:14 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Ignoramus25047 wrote:
    >> This is old news, though true.
    >>
    >> Relying on Windows for real security (like if you have something very
    >> serious to hide) is just insane.

    >
    > Crazy insane, like relying on Linux for real security?
    >
    > "The Ubuntu community had to yank five of the eight Ubuntu-hosted community
    > servers sponsored by Canonical offline Aug. 6 after discovering that the
    > servers had been hijacked and were attacking other machines."
    >
    > http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Ub...Launch-Attack/


    Did Roy Schestowitz have anything to do with administering them?
    That would sure explain why they got hacked.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  11. Re: How is a 10 year old story you know is false "news", Roy?

    On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:38:05 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Robin T Cox wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1128.html

    >
    > 10 year old story, which you *know* is false. How is this news?


    Bobbin Robin needs to get access to Roy Schestowitz's AI database of SPAM.
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  12. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:17:56 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Robin T Cox on Wednesday 02 April 2008 18:25 : \____
    >
    >> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:15:50 -0700, Darth Chaos wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquir...09/government-

    >> spooks-helped-microsoft-build-vista
    >>>
    >>> Excerpt:
    >>>
    >>> Microsoft is not the only one to tap the spooks. Apple, with its Mac OSX
    >>> operating system, and Novell with its SUSE Linux also asked the NSA what
    >>> it thought of their products. The NSA is quite good at finding weapons
    >>> of mass destruction that are not there.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/01/08/

    >> AR2007010801352.html
    >>>
    >>> Excerpt:
    >>>
    >>> For the first time, the giant software maker is acknowledging the help
    >>> of the secretive agency, better known for eavesdropping on foreign
    >>> officials and, more recently, U.S. citizens as part of the Bush
    >>> administration's effort to combat terrorism. The agency said it has
    >>> helped in the development of the security of Microsoft's new operating
    >>> system -- the brains of a computer -- to protect it from worms, Trojan
    >>> horses and other insidious computer attackers.

    >>
    >> LOL that's brilliant! With friends like the NSA who needs enemies?
    >> Obviously the NSA are as incompetent as the rest of the Bush
    >> administration.
    >>
    >> However, it's nice to know that MS are so closely tied into them.

    >
    > I think that for this reason the Chinese government wanted to build its own
    > Linux. It goes back to something I read about two years ago, so I can't find
    > the source or recall it precisely. In years to come, it will be natural for
    > governments to require full control of the source code they compile, not just
    > what they are allowed to view (they viewed Windows source code).


    Let me get this straight.
    We are talking about China, the country that censors everything, including
    Google (I think?) that they don't want their people to see.

    And you think it is *good* for them to be using Linux, which they most
    certainly are working very hard at compiling a "custom" state sponsored
    version of for the *benefit* of their people?

    You have got to be kidding.....

    At least with Windows, even if they can see the source code, technically
    they are prohibited from modifying and recompiling it to create their own
    version.
    It's of course possible to do, but highly unlikely.

    And if you believe China is sincere in releasing "Redflag Linux" or whatver
    they call it, and expect it to be clean and free from govt inserted
    *nasties* you probably believe in the tooth fairy.

    Roy Schestowitz in action.
    It's not a pretty site..........

    >Ignorance is bliss.


    You should know Roy Schestowitz.
    You wrote the book.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  13. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:24:58 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    >
    >> And you think it is *good* for them to be using Linux, which they most
    >> certainly are working very hard at compiling a "custom" state sponsored
    >> version of for the *benefit* of their people?
    >>
    >> You have got to be kidding.....
    >>
    >> At least with Windows, even if they can see the source code, technically
    >> they are prohibited from modifying and recompiling it to create their own
    >> version.

    >
    > And with the GPL they have to distribute the source code with the OS, so
    > those lovely little dog eaters can change whatever the hell they likes.
    >
    > Don't you read the book of stereotypes?
    >
    > They leave women to die
    > Eat dogs
    > And can all code from birth.


    Two Out of Three Ain't Bad...
    "Jim Steinman"
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    * chrisv peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > DanS wrote:
    >>
    >> And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and the
    >> reason you pick this one is because it the lowest rating for Linux of
    >> any of them, that I have seen.

    >
    > Please list them. I don't believe linux has that penetration; actually, I
    > question the .6% representing actual desktops _using_ linux. Maybe they're
    > counting downloads whether they are being installed and used, or not.


    This poster is forging chrisv.

    --
    When we have the information highway, I'll put it [information about
    himself] out there. Everybody who wants to pay, I don't know, one cent, can
    see what movies I'm watching and what books I'm reading and certain other
    information. If I'm still interesting, I'll rack up dollars as people
    access that part of the highway.
    -- Bill Gates, Interview in Playboy magazine (1994)

  15. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> > Yet you tought the NSA developed SELinux as a great thing.
    >> >
    >> > Hypocrite.

    >>
    >> Since when is Windows open-source?
    >>
    >> Oh, I forgot, you hate open-source and its proponents.

    >
    > You seem to have confused "not open-source" with "source code is not
    > available". Just because *you* don't have access to the source code
    > doesn't mean that many neutral third-parties have not been given access.


    True. However, Tim, where did I say that /no/ third-parties have access
    to Windows source code.

    Sheesh, why do you have to mischaracterize what I say?

    >> The link above:
    >>
    >> Microsoft said this is not the first time it has sought help from the
    >> NSA. For about four years, Microsoft has tapped the spy agency for
    >> security expertise in reviewing its operating systems, including the
    >> Windows XP consumer version and the Windows Server 2003 for corporate
    >> customers.
    >>
    >> This is a good thing. But how will we know there are no back-doors? We
    >> can't vet the code (without a non-disclosure agreement). And, when you
    >> read this:

    >
    > Same way we do with open source--ask third parties who have reviewed the
    > code. The only difference is that with open source, we can do a review
    > ourselves, if we are competent to do so, but most of us are not, so we
    > have to rely on the third parties.


    You apparently missed the part about the non-disclosure agreement(s).

    --
    Unfortunately, many programs are so big that there is no one individual who
    really knows all the pieces, and so the amount of code sharing you get isn't
    as great. Also, the opportunity to go back and really rewrite something
    isn't quite as great, because there's always a new set of features that
    you're adding on to the same program.
    -- Bill Gates

  16. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    "chrisv" schreef in bericht
    news:96k9v3dm332nip3819gguinc9347nk2j1f@4ax.com...
    > some idiot forging chrisv wrote:
    >
    >>Here's a comment: Bull****e!

    >
    > Ignore the forger.
    >


    Fsck you arsehole troll.
    *plonk*



  17. Re: [Rival]NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:01:00 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

    > "chrisv" wrote in message
    > news:47f44e49$0$9900$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >> DanS wrote:
    >>>
    >>> And there are sites that have it at 1.x% and 2.x% and 3.x% and the
    >>> reason you pick this one is because it the lowest rating for Linux of
    >>> any of them, that I have seen.

    >>
    >> Please list them. I don't believe linux has that penetration; actually,
    >> I question the .6% representing actual desktops _using_ linux. Maybe
    >> they're counting downloads whether they are being installed and used,
    >> or not.
    >>
    >>

    > I would imagine linux.org would have a high percentage of linux
    > browsers.. pretty much meaningless if you choose your sites with care.
    > To stand any chance of being correct you need to use a site like the bbc
    > that has content that appeals to all. This allows anyone to argue which
    > figures are correct if they don't like them. It is a no win situation.


    BBC itself may be OS-neutral, but that doesn't mean that the average
    Linux user is as likely as the average Windows user to get their news
    there. People who would use a niche OS tend to be independent-minded and
    assertive and at least half the Linux users out there are computer
    power-users. As such, they may be more likely to prefer less
    conventional news sources, may spend most of their online time on
    technical and linux websites, and are more likely to use powerful
    adblockers which, as a side-effect, tend to interfere with OS
    identification and hit counters. Though it's not as bad as it used to
    be, enough Linux users have to emulate IE to access websites that some
    of the Linux browsers have a menu entry for browser-ID. And, finally,
    I've seen many claims that IE generates more hits per visit than Linux
    browsers.

    So, OS hits for "neutral" sites don't tell us anything, either.

  18. Re: How is a 10 year old story you know is false "news", Roy?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith

    wrote
    on Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:38:05 -0700
    :
    > In article ,
    > Robin T Cox wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1128.html

    >
    > 10 year old story, which you *know* is false. How is this news?
    >


    27-Mar-2008, 5 days before April 1st. Presumably, someone's
    pulling our leg.

    A search on nsa.gov for "Microsoft" coughed up
    http://www.nsa.gov/snac/os/win2003/MSCG-001R-2003.PDF
    which appears to be a fairly generic security guide
    for Win2003 server.

    It coughed up a few other things but nothing to suggest
    NSA's acknowledgement of putting code in Windows,
    or even rumors thereof.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
    bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  19. Re: How is a 10 year old story you know is false "news", Roy?

    In article ,
    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > >
    > >> http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1128.html

    > >
    > > 10 year old story, which you *know* is false. How is this news?
    > >

    >
    > 27-Mar-2008, 5 days before April 1st. Presumably, someone's
    > pulling our leg.


    Try September, 1999:



    The March, 2008 story is a word-for-word reprint of that.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  20. Re: How is a 10 year old story you know is false "news", Roy?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith

    wrote
    on Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:31:32 -0700
    :
    > In article ,
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/1128.html
    >> >
    >> > 10 year old story, which you *know* is false. How is this news?
    >> >

    >>
    >> 27-Mar-2008, 5 days before April 1st. Presumably, someone's
    >> pulling our leg.

    >
    > Try September, 1999:
    >
    >
    >
    > The March, 2008 story is a word-for-word reprint of that.
    >


    In that case someone is definitely pulling our leg.
    The question is: who?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast