Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 3rd May 2009 09:16 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Thread beginning with comment 361575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: And now we know...
by google_ninja on Mon 4th May 2009 12:54
in reply to "RE[2]: And now we know..."
Microsoft does have programs for source access for partners and academia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source
Build and process auditing are irrelevant (not to mention a bit weird), but I agree that they should be at least EAL 4 (Methodically Designed, Tested, and Reviewed) certified.
RE[3]: And now we know...
by Tuishimi on Mon 4th May 2009 20:17
in reply to "RE[2]: And now we know..."
I worked in OpenVMS Security and the Gov't approval process is very long and drawn out. I do not remember whether or not they are allowed access to anything they want, but the product must meet standards set forth by the gov't for approval process. It was a long time ago, but I DO remember people sweating for many months at a time just for point releases.
But who knows if things have changed.






Member since:
2005-07-24
Yes, but at least we can view the source.
I pray to every god ever conceived by the fearful mind of man that the USAF and the US.gov were smart enough to demand FULL source access - and then build their OWN copy of the OS. OR at least have code audits to check for back doors! I would NOT want to entrust my security to one company that did not divulge the source for its products.
This is the government, they should have build & process auditing as a standard stipulation of attaining a government contract - regardless of product.
--The loon