Thomas wrote:
But most people didn't know, and the authorities didn't want them to know, is that the problem hasn't been fixed. In spite of lots of officials striking a pose of doing so. In demonstrating how easy it still is to plant a boxcutter in an airplane, the student provided valuable information to the public which the authorities didn't want provided.
One of the dillemas inherent to the whole thing is that the public really won't accept reality. That it's simply impossible to guarantee security. At the same time they want the economcy to do well. Authorities are in the unenviable position of being responsible for spuring economic growth and keeping people's heads on.
Of course the "problem" hasn't been "fixed" and it never ever will be.
Quote:I can do even better than that.
How is it better if it's not at all what we were talking about? You illustrate that Microsoft used to be worse at dealing with bugs. But I asked you to cite what you claimed, not something else that you were able to find.
It's misleading to claim that "Microsoft" intentionally did this, some employee did and "Microsoft" had absolutely no knowledge. Back then, even the open source activists didn't believe it was intentional.
Quote:The hole, which was intended as a backdoor for the NFS, had been in there for 4 years. It wasn't until white hat hackers disclosed the bug that Microsoft closed the hole.
Yes, and it's important to remember that Microsoft was not aware of the hole. Only the saboteur(s) were. So this is not an example of what you claimed, that Microsoft deliberately ignored reports of exploits.
Quote:This is not quite what you were asking for because it hadn't been necessary to actually post an exploit.
You are right, it's not at all what I was asking for. Not a single element of what you'd claimed and that I asked you to cite is contained in that example.
You claimed that Microsoft ignored reports of exploits till they were disclosed. I asked you to cite. So you cite a case in which Microsoft was sabotaged from within, then someone found out and Microsoft promptly fixed it as an example?
Saying it's not "quite" what I'd asked for (and note that all I was asking was for you to cite your own false claim) is a huge understatement.
Quote:But it goes to demonstrate the point I intended to make. Microsoft used to be terrible at handling bugs, and it wasn't the people exposing them who acted irresponsibly. It was the company itself. Your post tells me that maybe you weren't following the scene that closely in the nineties -- Microsoft has improved a lot this century.
Well, you have altered your point. First it was that Microsoft ignored reports of exploits till hackers disclosed them (which is a lie) and now it's just that they were bad with bugs (no duh).
If your point was that the makers of the largest most complex software in the history of computing are the producers of the most bugs you are preaching to the converted. But you dodged the request for a citation to your claim entirely.
You claimed that Microsoft ignored reports of exploits. You have failed to cite ONE example of this, as I had requested. In any case, since I know you won't find anything to cite for your original claim I'd like to address the modified version.
Yes, white hat hackers responsibly help Microsoft fix holes all the time. But that is what I have been saying all along. White hat hackers practice responsible disclosure, and I am contending that this kid acted in the manner of a black hat hacker, a cracker, instead of a white hat hacker.
