Linked by runjorel on Thu 13th Jan 2011 19:35 UTC
Linux "At the end of 2010, the 'open-source' software movement, whose activists tend to be fringe academics and ponytailed computer geeks, found an unusual ally: the Russian government. Vladimir Putin signed a 20-page executive order requiring all public institutions in Russia to replace proprietary software, developed by companies like Microsoft and Adobe, with free open-source alternatives by 2015."
Permalink for comment 457852
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Security is a big concern
by Laurence on Fri 14th Jan 2011 09:46 UTC in reply to "Security is a big concern"
Member since:

One thing proprietary software such as Microsoft's offerings add, is the ability to introduce code that could create backdoors, or even send data back to the source or government w/o the end user's consent or knowledge... all done vis the OS's kernel or via a driver of the Proprietary OS's signing. And since the OS is proprietary, it's extremely easy to introduce, either by the behest of a foreign government, or by the behest of the home government. At least with Opensource OSs I believe it is much more costly, resource intensive, and difficult to do or even keep in the wild without someone recognizing a "security flaw".

As I said before, it would be quite easy to track outgoing connections (even if you can't establish the content of the traffic).

The Russian Government wouldn't be using a special build of Windows, thus if there's backdoors in the Russian builds then there's going to be backdoors in everyones build.

So what you're essentially suggesting is that globally there isn't a single network administrator with Windows clients or servers in their infrastructure that is competent enough to notice unauthorised outgoing network connections.

Personally I think the more likely answer is that the whole "MS build backdoors to monitor governments" is just scaremongering from the kind of tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorists that think the moon landings were faked.

Furthermore, you wouldn't write such a backdoor into the kernel itself. It would be completely useless there. You'd want it in userspace albeit still built into the OS framework.

Edited 2011-01-14 09:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3