Microsoft Releases Super-Secure XP to US Air Force 507
Wired is reporting that Microsoft is releasing the most secure version of Windows XP ever created, but only if you are the US Air Force. "The Air Force persuaded Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to provide it with a secure Windows configuration that saved the service about $100 million in contract costs and countless hours of maintenance. At a congressional hearing this week on cybersecurity, Alan Paller, research director of the Sans Institute, shared the story as an template for how the government could use its massive purchasing power to get companies to produce more secure products. And those could eventually be available to the rest of us. Security experts have been arguing for this "trickle-down" model for years. But rather than wield its buying power for the greater good, the government has long wimped out and taken whatever vendors served them. If the Air Force case is a good judge, however, things might be changing."
Re:I would just love to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
If... (Score:2, Interesting)
MS is probably holding the air force hostage (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Autorun? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe so. And while "the most secure XP ever" might not be that secure in absolute terms, I'm sure it's still a step forward. So even if the choice might not be ideal for the military, it really helps the average consumer (and I suspect that security wasn't the Air Force's primary concern - they just wanted to spend less on the patching treadmill). For once, I'm happy with my tax dollars at work.
AF Standard Desktop Configuration (Score:5, Interesting)
While this was an interesting article, the XP and the Vista versions used by the USAF are the same ones used by the general public. The only differences are the security setting, the firewall configuration, and the user configuration. No one is an admin unless they need to be, and no normal day-to-day work is done in admin mode (same thing you do in Linux, no doubt).
I didn't know this article was going to be published, but when I found it, I was not surprised by the comments. I've been working on this program for more than 2 years. Users hate it. Developers loathe it. Network security staff loves it.
Nothing can make Windows (or any other OS) completely secure if it's connected to a network. This is as close as the federal government as ever come.
Re:diversity is fantastic protection (Score:2, Interesting)
oh yes, we definitely don't want a monoculture. Please make sure the poor 19 year old airman who barely knows how to install a driver in XP now must know how to do so on a Ubuntu box, a Macintosh, XP, Vista and for the hell of it, a couple Win 3.1 boxes 'just in case'. And pity the poor sergeant who is given a Powerpoint presentation by the general and has to figure out how to make it work across 4 different versions of Office, OpenOffice, etc.
But at least we'll know when we get hacked that only part our useless network will get taken out by the bad guys.
Networks must be useful first... or else why bother defending them?
Re:Cat out of the bag...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Next up, the Army and Navy. After that, government agencies ... finally, big businesses and the public.
Yes, so we will be able to buy XP instead of the best and most secure OS, Vista!!!!!
I think that this is the best own goal ever done by MS in its long life, on two counts. first, they are saying that XP is arguably more secure than vista. second, they are saying that while all organizations are created equals, some are more equal than others. Why is it that i cannot buy XP anymore, while the Air force can?
So, I do not think that "big business and the public" will ever be able to buy that. Never. not ever. BUT, that does not mean that this will not have repercussions.Big business will use it as a lever to delay, yet again, the adoption of Vista/win7, by browbeating MS into admitting that they will support XP longer than publicly stated ( I do not think that they will leave the Air force high and dry in four years, do you?), and demanding equal treatment. moreover, I do not think it possible that this XP will not percolate in the public domain.
One more unintended consequence: any attempt into selling Vista/win 7 by implying that Xp is less secure is meaningless now: "go tell the blue boys, then come back!"
In other news . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
The Air Force has yet to explain who, if anyone, authorized the bombing of a Redmond, WA software company by a squadron of B-52s.
Re:85 percent of attacks were blocked (Score:3, Interesting)
This is way beyond a "stock" system...
Okay... I'd still like to see the stats for a fully patched stock system before I say "Oh, this isn't worth the effort."
But it still completely fails to protect the host against 15% of the *known attacks* in the wild?
Do you have a comprehensive list of those attacks? I know that I don't.
How many of those attacks are software keyloggers? There's not a whole hell of a lot that you can do to protect against that.
How many of them are hardware keyloggers?
USB or FireWire DMA memory access sploits?
We need details before we can pass judgement. Until we have these details, this "report" is just some MS PR flack flapping his gums.