[Am-info] Microsft's Valentine: "Windows not secure by design"

[Roy Bixler]

On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 08:17:06PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Roy Bixler wrote:
> >So it's official; Windows is insecure.  See
> >"http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r46677969" for details.  As this
> >article at
> >
> >http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5313
> >
> >surmises, one wonders if there is another shoe (like maybe a Palladium
> >one) to drop shortly.
>
> I think that Slashdot's treatment of this was quite unfair. His 
> statements were responsible and reasonable and moderate and balanced, 
> and the press (and you) are taking him unfairly out of context.

I didn't read Slashdot, so I can't comment on that.  But is it not
true that Valentine said, in effect, that "Windows is not designed to
be secure"?  If so, how are the articles quoted "unfair" or "out of
context"?  It sounds like you know more about this than what I read.
Please enlighten me.

> Which is not to say that MS OS products are other than shoddy and 
> insecure.....;-)

To me, it's always nice to get official confirmation of that.  But
again, the point is to wonder if they're going to use this admission
to sell something like Palladium saying "this time, it *is* secure
unlike that junk we sold before."  There is precedent for this when,
as I recall, Gates a few years ago admitted that the DOS-based Windows
products are unreliable.  The context was that he was trying to sell
the reliability of Win2K.

R.