Gee *not* having access to Windows source code has "allowed
hackers to exploit the operating system and attack machines
running Windows" with relative ease. Maybe they should try
releasing all the source code if they're interested in
inproving the security of Windows OS:


From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111306,00.html

Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla said in an interview with
The Associated Press that some incomplete portions of the
Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 source code had been "illegally
made available on the Internet."

Access to the source code could allow hackers to exploit the
operating system and attack machines running some versions of
Windows. Several versions of the operating system, including
the ones containing leaked code, are used on hundreds of
millions of computers worldwide.

Jerry Nash wrote:
Are you all finally getting it or are you still lost, confused and
baahaahaa-ing Microsoft for their shitty security trying to figure
out who could possibly have leaked that portion of the source?

The clue is in the following paragraph:

"Access to the source code could allow hackers to exploit the
operating system and attack machines running some versions of
Windows. Several versions of the operating system, including
the ones containing leaked code, are used on hundreds of
millions of computers worldwide."

Kaiser Bun wrote:

operating system" is if the code is bad to begin with. In which case, access
to the code isn't required. So we now have an admission that MS code is
crap.

--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net

Russ Lyttle wrote:
Although technically saavy people may understand your assertion,
the vast majority will neither understand nor care. Their target audience
is the average Joe; the sort of people who still think it's illegal to buy
a computer without Windows preinstalled. They will only see:

- source code leaked
- hackers will exploit

That will be enough for the vast majority to draw a conclusion.

Kaiser Bun wrote:

--
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net

Russ Lyttle wrote:
Too right. Having seen CNN and BBC World's coverage of this, it's clear
that the average person will make a simple connection:

source_code_available == very_bad_thing

I'm convinced that this is a Microsoft ploy. Chuck a bit of old source
code out on to the internet. Within moments you have international news
coverage convincing the population (including CEOs of major clients and
prospects - CEOs generally knowing dick about IT) that:

* M$ is being victimised.
* People having access to source code is an open door to hackers,
vandals and organised crime.
* Did you know that being 'open source' means having access to source code?
* It's all the fault of those 'open source' weirdos.
* open source = hacking.
* Did I mention that Linux users are criminals?
* By the way, this is source code for our old software. You'll be fine
if you upgrade to XP/2003.

This is FUD on a big scale and it has cost them nothing.

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Dick Cheney mumbled this incantation:

Don't forget to take your nitroglycerine tablets, Mr. Cheney.

--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

Jerry Nash wrote:

Are there any golden nuggets to be found? I think that microsoft should
worry that all of the slight changes made to API's will now be shown to
exist only to break interoperability with others. They have implements
many open source API's that wound up broken that it had to have been an
attempt to poison the water. What I would not give to find one example in
all this code that microsoft made a conscious decision to break java,
keredos, xml or any thing else the have embraced and suffocated. They
should change their mascot from bug to a python.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:47:27 +0100, kegwasher <washer_of_kegs@t-online.de> wrote:
Not a python! That would taint the image of a wonderful programming language.
How about worm instead of a butterfly?

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:18:28 +0000, Jerry Nash wrote:

[snip Windows source code leaked]

In its previous stage, a butterfly is nothing but a sort of worm, designed
to voraciously eat (among other things) our resources and grow.
The butterfly itself is a very fragile, pretty looking thing, only
designed to produce more larvae, which eat our resources and grow ...

Why change the perfect analogy?

Richard Rasker

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jerry Nash wrote:

A bug by any other name ...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFALkhzd1ZThqotgfgRAgbVAKDKsDvh/JL7sXEmu+avPXvPuEcX6gCfVdlQ
d44RXP7lBJQH09J7lo7Wg08=
=70qz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

kegwasher said the following, on 02/14/04 08:47:
[snip]
What do you have against Python? :-) It's quite a nice language.

Personally, I would suggest something like a cockroach.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:28:44 -0500, in article
<news:402e4cb7@news101.his.com>, Rich Gibbs wrote:

Agreed.

No, cockroaches are one of nature's most successful survivors. I propose a
massive dinosaur, well on its way to extinction.

Hamilcar Barca wrote:

DoDo Bird works for me
--
__________m___~¿Õ____m__________________

___m___~¿Õ____m___ <NoSpam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Nah.
I hear they were VERY tasty and friendly birds...
That's why they were wiped out.
"ooo, look, a strange 2 legged thing, I think I'll go and say hello"
*CHOP*

So anyway, it was like, 14:25 CET Feb 17 2004, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
spike1@freenet.co.uk was all like, "Dude,
-----8<-----
Dodo: Prepare for the Ice Age.
Sid: Ice Age?
Diego: I've heard of these crackpots.
----->8-----

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
15:09:21 up 23 days, 22:46, 7 users, load average: 3.32, 3.29, 3.36
$ cat /dev/bollocks "echo y | format c:" Registered Linux user #261729
synergize collaborative e-tailers