Microsoft Opens Source Code To KGB's Successor Agency

Jack Spine writes "Microsoft has struck a deal with the Russian government which will give the FSB, successor to the KGB, access to the source code for Windows 7, among other products. The agreement is an extension of Microsoft's Government Security Program, according to a source with links to the UK government."

Re:security holes of releasing source code

[cappp]

Russia is just being added to a rather long list of countries in this regard. Playing a little link-hopping [zdnet.co.uk] tells us that both NATO and 30 countries (including the UK) have made similar deals with Microsoft albeit in refence to older technology. I would assume that all of those entities have similar updates to their agreements.

Re:Buildable?

[Shados]

Probably not. It is not all that uncommon for Microsoft to open its source. I mean, it doesn't happen everyday, but they have special facilities for that purpose alone.

It may have changed, but back when i saw it, it was basically a web based code browser that doesn't allow the more simple copying features (like no export and stuff obviously).

If its still what they use, then it definitely cannot (realistically) be built.

Re:As Stalin said

[m93]

That was actually a Lenin quote.

Re:Available as a Torrent in 3... 2... 1...

[timeOday]

Don't you remember the big leak [kuro5hin.org] of Windows source code a few years ago?

Surprisingly, it didn't turn out to have any impact on anything, that I can tell.

Re:Damned if they do, damned if they dont...

[mikechant]

I think it's ironic that we're reading an article about MS releasing source code and the /. community is busting their balls. Just sayin'.

Maybe you should think some more and consider that
1/ MS are releasing the source code to potentially hostile foreign governments (China, Russia), but *not* to (say) security researchers etc. who might get something useful out of it for the benefit of Windows users in general.
2/ MS are not releasing buildable or complete source, there is no way to tell if the source accurately reflects the actual distributed binaries.
3/ MS has been doing this for years and it is clearly not in any way a path, stepping stone or partial move towards open source or anything like it.

So maybe you'd be able to explain why it's 'ironic' that they are being criticised in the light of the above?