[Am-info] Re: So it's official; Windows is insecure

[Roy Bixler]

On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 12:14:26PM -0500, Glenn Livezey wrote:
> I have trtied unsuccessfully to load the first reference two times, each time
> allowing 10 minutes over a modem line. Please provide the text as a reply
> or an attachment. A quote from your second source reads
> 
> "News site CW360 first reported this story, but it seems to be overloaded
> today, so we'll refer you to the discussion about this at  Slashdot- here-. µ"
> 
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/06/1252211&mode=nested&tid=109
> Which in turn links you to Info World
> http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/09/05/020905hnmssecure.xml?Template=/storypages/printfriendly.html
> 
> The salient text seems to be one line by Valentine, and I for one would
> appreciate getting that one line in a text (not html) post.
> 
> In any case, thank you for any original and related text you can provide.

Here it is:

    "I'm not proud," he told delegates yesterday (5 September). "We
    really haven't done everything we could to protect our
    customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
    admitted Valentine, who since 1998 has headed Microsoft's Windows
    division.

where the "delegates" were at the Windows server .net conference in
Seattle.  Further in the article, he also says this:

   "We realised that we couldn't continue with the way we were
   building software and expect to deliver secure products,"

in talking about Gates' "Trustworthy Computing Initiative".  Also,

   "It's impossible to solve the problem completely," Valentine
   said. "As we solve these problems there are hackers who are going
   to come up with new ones. There's no end to this."

He's right, but I of course question who, if anyone, "Trustworthy
Computing Initiative" is trustworthy for.

R.