RE: Military and Microsoft

[claribba <claribba@jps.net>]

  Thank Ken Hamlett, for the info.  My understanding of the news article, was
  that the software was to be used  in  combat situations, not just
  administrative, and in conjunction with satellite transmissions.    
  
  Claire Macdonald
  
  
  >At 01:29 PM 11/26/97 -0500, you wrote:
  >>This morning I read at:
  >>
  >>http://www.abcnews/sections/scitech/battle1124/
  >>
  >>that the Marines being "tired of Unix" have now switched to NT.
  >>
  >>I have no knowledge of NT, but wonder if it poses any security risks such
  >>as are to be found in WIN98.
  >>
  >
  >My knowledge may be a little out of date because I tried it for a short while
  >and found it far too easy to spoof, and those almost weekly bug reports
  really
  >bugged me.
  >However from the news it seems that the only change has been an increase
  >in the number of security breaches.  The down side is that it is so easy to
  >breach that even newbie hackers are fairly successful at either designing
  >a way to infiltrate the system or stumbling upon ways to break the system.
  >The up side is that the hardcore blackhats are are getting bored due to the
  >ease of bypassing security so are moving on to greater challenges. Of course
  >this is from a combination of rumor and news reports. I suspect it will
  >be a long time before I actually bother to waste time with it again.
  >
  >Regarding the question of widespread use in the military, it would sort
  >of vary with the branch and how critical the job would be. For general
  >admin work, it would be fairly easy to sway a quartermaster  to buy a 
  >a product if the deal clincher is a job offer after retirement. However
  >a little toughter to get a medium  ranking officer to to make such a switch
  >without the blessing of a higher level of command. But when you get to the 
  >top it seems to get easier to sway a General to make sweeping changes even
  >without the technical facts to back up the decision. Again a job offer after
  >retirement seems to have swayed a lot of purchasing policies.
  >
  >In the military it's all a matter of balancing the possibility of personal
  >liability against the possibility of personal gain. They do buy the best
  >if there is proof that the alternative is junk but if there is no definate
  >policy
  >backed up by proof that a product is inferior, there is room for the
  >individual to
  >"be swayed" until such time as the inferior product is proven to be defective
  >and added to the "don't buy list".
  >All in all it is entirely possible to expand the military use of NT until
  >one or more of its bugs causes enough mayhem to be written up as defective.
  >On the other hand, all it takes is one General that that gets pissed off
  one too
  >many times from having to reboot or call a specialist in to  cause the
  product
  >to be shelved.
  >
  >God help us all if they depend upon NT for anything relating to national
  >security or where lives are at stake.
  >
  >Ken Hamlett
  >
  >
  >