Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

propublica.org

101–110 of 318 posts

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#101
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Microsoft bribes scandal broke not too long after I had to take the "hey don't do bribes" training at Microsoft. That event really drove home for me the fact that all of the trainings, emails, processes, etc. are mostly plausible deniability. There are people who care about security at MS. I know, I've met them, but for the most part all of this exists so that Satya can plausibly say in court or in front of congr…

I dunno, that’s a pretty cynical take. Isn’t it just as plausible that they became aware of the bribes internally and were trying to curtail them when the scandal broke out? Or maybe the “don’t do bribes” training actually worked enough for someone to whistleblow even if official internal channels failed? Those who are doing wrong often try to stymie others from making positive changes out of fear, greed, etc. Edit:…

Probably neither, "don't do bribes" training is standard onboarding procedure at any Fortune 500 company. Just ironic timing from OPs POV

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#102
There's a pretty big caveat in this story which I feel is being looked over:

"Disabling seamless SSO would have widespread and unique consequences for government employees, who relied on physical “smart cards” to log onto their devices. Required by federal rules, the cards generated random passwords each time employees signed on. Due to the configuration of the underlying technology, though, removing seamless SSO would mean users could not access the cloud through their smart cards. To access services or data on the cloud, they would have to sign in a second time and would not be able to use the mandated smart cards."

The U.S. Government (USG) is one of MSFT's largest (if not the largest) customers. The user base is enormous, and the AD footprint equally so. I have experience working in this space; the user and roles management is a nightmare with comprimised credentials, locked out accounts, and the like. Given the nature of their work, it's a constant target.

The USG has been attempting to move everyone to smart card auth to help mitigate some of these issues. Removing passwords and turning everyone to two-factor auth would greatly reduce their attack surface. They've been pursuing this for years.

So along comes this guy, and he says that, as part of this fix, just tell all of their customers to turn this off.

I don't dispute the danger of the original SAML flaw. But I think Harris is unfairly judging the rest of MSFT's reaction here. He's asking them to turn off two-factor auth across entire agencies. I might as well hand an attacker a set of credentials because that's the amount of effort and time they would need to phish a set off someone.

To reiterate, the flaw in AD FS was bad and needed immeditate attention. But the short term mitigation Harris proposes would drastically hurt their security and open tons of customers to attacks of the very sort they were trying to prevent. This story is spun as another instance of a company not caring about security, but I see a "whistleblower" who had a very narrow view of their customers overall security posture, and threw a fit when this was pointed out to him.

"To access services or data on the cloud, they would have to sign in a second time and would not be able to use the mandated smart cards.

Harris said Morowczynski rejected his idea, saying it wasn’t a viable option."

I would fully expect most government agency Info Sec Systems Managers (ISSMs) to say the same.

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#103
post #92

> “If you’re faced with the tradeoff between security and another priority, your answer is clear: Do security,” the company’s CEO, Satya Nadella, told employees. Satya's model of making security a priority at Microsoft: - Cram ads in every nook and corner of Windows. Left, right, centre, back, front, everywhere. What else is an operating system for? - Install a recorder which records everything you do. For the benefi…

I have no broad evidence of this, but I suspect that the more beginner-friendly Linuxes are guilty of a lot of the sins that you laid out here. I seem to remember some controversy with Canonical recording your searches when hitting the super key, and Ubuntu having Amazon ads built in by default. People who love to geek out about computers can of course install Arch or Gentoo or NixOS Minimal and then audit the packag…

I mean, if you have no evidence of this, why even post such an (incorrect) conspiracy theory comment?

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#104
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no broad evidence of this, but I suspect that the more beginner-friendly Linuxes are guilty of a lot of the sins that you laid out here. I seem to remember some controversy with Canonical recording your searches when hitting the super key, and Ubuntu having Amazon ads built in by default. People who love to geek out about computers can of course install Arch or Gentoo or NixOS Minimal and then audit the packag…

Debian is a perfectly reasonable choice for casual linux users. Ubuntu's supposed usability improvements over Debian are greatly exaggerated. It's mostly just marketting.

Fair enough. I haven't used Debian in quite awhile (I think since 2009 or so?), so I can't speak to current stuff, but I do remember it being pretty hard to install then. I'm sure they have refined it considerably since then, and of course I am fifteen years more experienced now than I was.

Personally it's hard for me to go back after I accepted the dogma of NixOS, but maybe if I manage to talk my parents into using Linux I'll install Debian for them.

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#105
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no broad evidence of this, but I suspect that the more beginner-friendly Linuxes are guilty of a lot of the sins that you laid out here. I seem to remember some controversy with Canonical recording your searches when hitting the super key, and Ubuntu having Amazon ads built in by default. People who love to geek out about computers can of course install Arch or Gentoo or NixOS Minimal and then audit the packag…

I mean, if you have no evidence of this, why even post such an (incorrect) conspiracy theory comment?

Well the Amazon ads in Ubuntu absolutely did happen, as well as the searches with the super key. [1]

I'll admit it's maybe a bit of an extrapolation to assume that they're as bad as Microsoft, which is why I disclosed that I didn't have a ton of evidence for this.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html I realize that GNU is sort of conspiratorial in its own right, but at least one entity seemed to agree that there's problems with it.

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#106

Sounds like the same Microsoft culture as has always been. Like a cult. It can do no wrong. The conversation with Microsoft businesspeople at conferences was always the same: Microsoft has no deficiencies, there is nothing it isn't working on and it has a solution for every possible problem. Other sources of software do not exist. There is only Microsoft. Total illusion put forth by delusional employees. The outside…

This comment sounds hyperbolic, but it really isn't. It's really bad. This has been my experience with Microsoft employees also. In my experience, what makes for bad software is PM and engineering hubris. You definitely need some vision and confidence as just following user feedback is a recipe for terrible software as well. The key is to find the right balance and straddle that line. If it's been long enough for ins…

Can confirm, it is 100% hubris based on my limited time of working at Microsoft.

There is pervasive NIH syndrome, re-inventing the wheel, and massive amounts of over engineering and unnecessary abstraction caused by chasing the endless "But what if...?" dragon.

This behavior is justified, and critics are silenced, by the "But we're an enterprise company!" cop-out

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#107

> “If you’re faced with the tradeoff between security and another priority, your answer is clear: Do security,” the company’s CEO, Satya Nadella, told employees. Satya's model of making security a priority at Microsoft: - Cram ads in every nook and corner of Windows. Left, right, centre, back, front, everywhere. What else is an operating system for? - Install a recorder which records everything you do. For the benefi…

Say one thing, do another.

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#109
post #74
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, that’s a pretty cynical take. Isn’t it just as plausible that they became aware of the bribes internally and were trying to curtail them when the scandal broke out? Or maybe the “don’t do bribes” training actually worked enough for someone to whistleblow even if official internal channels failed? Those who are doing wrong often try to stymie others from making positive changes out of fear, greed, etc. Edit:…

Yes, massive companies are a nest of conflicting priorities. The sales team wants to do whatever it takes to win the deal, and the legal team wants everyone to behave ethically at all times. The board wants to be shocked(!) when it turns out those goals are in conflict, with the ethical side sometimes losing out, to remove any personal risk to themselves.

> legal team wants everyone to behave ethically at all times

do you really believe that? compliance under scrutiny, more like it

Re: Microsoft Chose Profit over Security, Whistleblower Says

#110
Yes, it's called investment capitalism - as long as the consequences of actions one demanded are never felt by oneself, due to limited liability of the financiers and shareholders, then such behavior will never change.

The solutions are well known - the corporate death penalty is a good one, which dissolves the legal and financial structures of the company (the real assets such as factories are unharmed by this, and may simply be sold to a new more reliable set of financiers and shareholders, or may be nationalized and managed by the state, or may be handed over to the workers who run the place to see if they can form an employee-owned company or not, etc.).

This isn't such a radical viewpoint, even many venture capitalists agree that this is the right way to go, e.g. on the airlines:

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/04/13/government-should-let-...

Post reply on HN