Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft's Software is Malware

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 185 posts

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#21

Post by forgottenpass »

RyanZAG wrote: post #4

It's all true and yet not true at the same time. Each item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed. For example, the backdoors are required by government, and Microsoft is not above the government and cannot really refuse if it is a legal requirement for national security. They're not exactly designed as backdoors either - mandatory security updates are necessary to prevent the spread of botnets. Th…

Each item on the list has valid business requirements and is needed.

So, the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense? [0]

Regular malware-malare has a valid business reason for showing you ads and exfiltrating private data too. It's harder to defend because it isn't bundled with a featureset the user also likes. But nobody downloaded BonziBUDDY or hot screensaver packs because they wanted the ads.

[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/quotes?item=qt0418062

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#22

Post by pjc50 »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #7

"Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly. (...) A person or company has the right to cease to work on a particular program; the wrong here is Microsoft does this after having made the users dependent on Microsoft, because they are not free to ask anyone else to work on the program for them." Microsoft did not make anybody dependent on them, and should have zero…

The argument is that by having users at all you're creating dependence. After all, if you've written a business critical application to the Windows API, you're not easily going to move to any of those options.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#23

Post by ChrisLTD »

wosos wrote: post #16
ChrisLTD wrote: post #7

"Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly. (...) A person or company has the right to cease to work on a particular program; the wrong here is Microsoft does this after having made the users dependent on Microsoft, because they are not free to ask anyone else to work on the program for them." Microsoft did not make anybody dependent on them, and should have zero…

I think the problem is that they won't allow anyone else to continue working on it

That's only a problem if Microsoft promised or implied XP would be updated indefinitely. Is that the case?

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#24

Post by bitmapbrother »

outside1234 wrote: post #11

All of this is true, but where is the equivalent attack on Google, whose software is essentially entirely designed to spy on you. Isn't that also Malware? Or is this sort of malware ok because it runs the Linux kernel? I really want to support GNU and FSF but they seem to be constantly fighting some 20 year stale war against a company that is in many ways way more open than Google, Facebook, and Apple.

Why don't you point out the spy software on the Android Open Source Project?

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#26

Post by sounds »

laumars wrote: post #9

> "Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly." XP has had longer support than any Linux distro out there (aside the rolling release ones, but that's a little different). I know this submission is intended to be biased, and I do honestly favour Linux over Windows anyway. But surely FUD like the above is so painfully transparent that it only undermines the credibili…

How exactly does a factual statement, "Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly," cause Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?

Are you really uncertain about whether Microsoft will EOL your current Windows version, or what that will mean for legitimate businesses who need it to continue to function?

If you don't want to hear what the FSF has to say, that's fine. But their statements are carefully worded in the hopes we can have a calm, logical discussion about the issue -- user freedom has become impossible with Microsoft's latest OS.

This submission is not intended to be biased.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#27

Post by SEJeff »

outside1234 wrote: post #11

All of this is true, but where is the equivalent attack on Google, whose software is essentially entirely designed to spy on you. Isn't that also Malware? Or is this sort of malware ok because it runs the Linux kernel? I really want to support GNU and FSF but they seem to be constantly fighting some 20 year stale war against a company that is in many ways way more open than Google, Facebook, and Apple.

In the meantime, the EFF is actually fighting for your freedom and right to not be spied on. Consider donating to them. I switched my monthly donation to the FSF to the EFF instead many years ago as I feel they're doing more to help keep society free than the FSF.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#28

Post by mc32 »

laumars wrote: post #9

> "Microsoft cut off security fixes for Windows XP, except to some big users that pay exorbitantly." XP has had longer support than any Linux distro out there (aside the rolling release ones, but that's a little different). I know this submission is intended to be biased, and I do honestly favour Linux over Windows anyway. But surely FUD like the above is so painfully transparent that it only undermines the credibili…

In almost any other context the content being delivered here would be considered a "hit piece".

I'm a bit miffed. The choir is already converted, so to speak, so this is not the intended audience, others, non converts, would mostly be put off by the over the top style and rhetoric.

Moreover, the article focuses on one vendor when other vendors follow similar policies but those aren't visited in the article.

So.... What gives?

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#29

Post by cwyers »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #10

The BitLocker recovery key for the user’s device is automatically backed up online in the Microsoft OneDrive account. Even if we trust MS, do we trust MS to keep these keys safe from outside hackers?

I mean, the short answer is "no." But the longer answer is more complicated than that. Start off with the question of, is the consequences of not being able to access your device worse than the consequence of someone else getting unauthorized access to your device (or is it worse, controlling for the probability of each?) And then, is Microsoft's storage of those keys more or less secure than any alternative way you could back up those keys remotely? It's possible to both not trust Microsoft to store the keys safely and to make a rational decision to entrust the keys to Microsoft anyway.

Re: Microsoft's Software is Malware

#30

Post by skolor »

exo762 wrote: post #3

Informing NSA about bugs before fixing them is grand. This alone qualifies MS software as malware.

Note what the actual source for that says:

> Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process.

The implication being made in the gnu page is that Microsoft delays fixing bugs so that the NSA can exploit them. The source article says something slightly different though, that they inform "various" agencies prior to the patches going live. I suspect the linux kernel devs do too, or Firefox, or any number of open source projects. I'd be more surprised if none of the people on the security lists for those groups don't have a list of agencies (both US and otherwise) they send bugs to .

Post reply on HN