Homeland Security Chooses Windows XP

[redstar2000]

Good News!

The Department of "Homeland Security" has signed a contract to run its computers on Windows XP.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1218668,00.asp

So, patriots, it's "one if by land" and "two if by sea" and, most likely, three if by "this program has performed an illegal operation and will shut down". :lol:

Cyberspies of the world, rejoice!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[187]

"So, spotty track record or not, Microsoft may just be the best and possibly only choice for the Department of Homeland Security."

hm.

[Xvall]

True Fact: The last words of Ulysses S. Grant were, "Use my corpse for a sled." Unfortunately, his body spontaneously combusted moments later, and his wish was never fulfilled..

[Nobody]

Drake, are you on crack or smack. Stop Spamming! Now I'm spamming.

[Zombie]

Indeed RS2000.

Now people will see that the stuff I've been saying the other day about WindowsXP being a spyingtool of choice for the governments is not just a hoax or a Orwell fantasy...

oh well... i think it's time i re-learn Linux...

[lostsoul]

Windows by default is very insecure, but if people work on it, it can be as secure as any other operating system.

[Zombie]

Windows cannot be modified to the users's need, unlike Linux, which is completely configurable and modifiable from the ground up.

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 07:09 PM
Windows cannot be modified to the users's need, unlike Linux, which is completely configurable and modifiable from the ground up.
I don't understand what you mean by users needs? Other then the Windows kernel, i thought most things could be modified. Only problem is that for some things you need windows to do it for you since you cannot see the source code.

I'm sure windows will personally take care of the goverment of america.

[Zombie]

Only problem is that for some things you need windows to do it for you since you cannot see the source code.

well that's a big problem. You can't see nor tapper with the source code, therefore if a trojan bug has been implemented inside of windows by Microsoft, there is no way of removing it and you're stuck with it, whether you want it or not.

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 07:52 PM

Only problem is that for some things you need windows to do it for you since you cannot see the source code.

well that's a big problem. You can't see nor tapper with the source code, therefore if a trojan bug has been implemented inside of windows by Microsoft, there is no way of removing it and you're stuck with it, whether you want it or not.
That is why, i heard, China rejected Windows and are instead using Linux. I heard they fear in the event of a dispute between America and China, Windows may have bugs that America can expolit. Windows will not give china the source code so their security experts can go through it.


But from the Americans side i don't think this is a problem. I could be wrong, but i think Microsoft would assist the US goverment in anything they needed. (to secure it, to customize it, or even perhapes to modify the source)

[redstarshining]

It's still an incredibly stupid decision, for the following reasons:

1.) Windows is still a pretty weak OS, especially when it comes to networking. Windows is terribly slow and can't even do a lot of simple things, such as MTU-discovery. Also, it's much too resource-consuming.

2.) A lack of flexibility. Complex problems require complex solutions, every major company has projects running that require you to do modifications to the kernel once in a while. So why shouln't the department for the desctruction of civil liberties?

3.) A lack of security. To handle sensitive data on an OS you don't even have the source code for is just incredibly stupid. MS will give the complete source code for windows to absolutely noone.
Of course, they can ask MS to do all modifications they need, but.... again, that's fairly stupid.

4.) Windows is prone to security breaches caused by the user. One wrong mouseclick, by one overworked employee and they will wish they never used proprietary software. Remember what happened when two russian students sent an email to one of the MS development departments, that had a backdoor attached to it? M$ Outlook Express™ opened it automatically before the user could react, and fragments of the source codes for MS office were stolen.

5.) A lack of reliability.


My guess is that they only use it in non-sensitive areas. Looks like a promotion campaign to support Microsoft.

[lostsoul]

1.) Windows is still a pretty weak OS, especially when it comes to networking. Windows is terribly slow and can't even do a lot of simple things, such as MTU-discovery. Also, it's much too resource-consuming.

According to the article, i believe, the computers will be for clients. XP networking does everything a linux, or mac O/S can do in terms of networking connectitivity. Don't you just need an ip, gateway and dns server address and your on the network?

Windows Xp is not used for servers. Its only for the client's so i don't think the networking will be a big problem.

2.) A lack of flexibility. Complex problems require complex solutions, every major company has projects running that require you to do modifications to the kernel once in a while. So why shouln't the department for the desctruction of civil liberties?

Perhapes on servers..but i have rarely seen client machine's kernals every modified.


3.) A lack of security. To handle sensitive data on an OS you don't even have the source code for is just incredibly stupid. MS will give the complete source code for windows to absolutely noone.
Of course, they can ask MS to do all modifications they need, but.... again, that's fairly stupid.

Although, this is a big problem. I think even if Microsoft gave the us goverment its source code, the goverment would not directly touch it. They would just read it and recommend changes. Most companies when they want a huge change, even perhapes on their linux kernel, they rarely do it themselfs..many companies i notice contact it to another company.




4.) Windows is prone to security breaches caused by the user. One wrong mouseclick, by one overworked employee and they will wish they never used proprietary software. Remember what happened when two russian students sent an email to one of the MS development departments, that had a backdoor attached to it? M$ Outlook Express™ opened it automatically before the user could react, and fragments of the source codes for MS office were stolen.

their was recently a hacking challenge, people had to hack and deface web pages. And Linux servers were hit the hardest(alot more then windows). My point is that these things could happen to anyone.


5.) A lack of reliability.

I run a windows and Linux box at home and both are equally stable. In the past year none of them has crashed for no reason. (my windows boxed crashed a few times when i was running my bus speed too high for my RAM, but linux would have done the same thing).



I get what your saying..Windows has problems..but i'm just trying to make a point that these problems can be overcome. Its just more work. But XP is easier then Linux and most people have expereince using it. I think that can add productivity right there.


Don't get me wrong..Linux rules.

[MiNdGaMe]

Wouldn't surprise me, Windows XP is very unsecure and buggy by default. The recent RPC bug was one of them awhile back a buffer overflow fix that would slow your computer down to "shit" creek. Not to mention expensive for the requirements (in my experience).

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

[Sabocat]

What does an air conditioner and a computer have in common?






Neither will work properly if you open windows....


Is this thing on?........*sounds of crickets*.....

[Zombie]

1)check
2)check
3)check
4)check
5)check.

Just for the record, the government has complete access to Windows' sourcecodes;
Interestingly enough, the only way Bill Gates could avoid another trial about it's illegal (mis)use of IExplorer and co, was to hand it's kernel codes on a silver plate to the US government.
That's what I'd call selling your soul to the devil.

[Zombie]

i just saw the POWER G5 ad on tv, the one where the guy flys throuh his house, destroying everything on his path, and lands backk against a tree... fucking nice if you ask me...

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 02:09 PM
Windows cannot be modified to the users's need, unlike Linux, which is completely configurable and modifiable from the ground up.
unfortunately, Linux is very unstable in itself
and if you dont know any computer language, youre fucked

and as for Windows XP as Homeland Securitys OS, the US is screwed
and it will allow Microsoft to have even MORE power, not only over the computer business
but over the government as well
President Gates
yuk

they shouldve chosen Mac OS X or Mac Industrial
try fuckin up a UNIX machine

[MiNdGaMe]

LINUX UNSTABLE???
i think your very misinformed
its the most stable OS out their, linux systems are capable of being online for several years.
You don't need to know a programming language, thought it would come in handy :)

[Jesus Christ]

ive ran linux before, and to get the full potential out of Linux, you need to know alot of prgramming language
it does crash, and it does alot
just depends on what ure doing

[redstarshining]

lostsoul:

if they only use it on workstations, that would make a little bit more sense.
But still, stability and flexibility also matter on workstations. And networking ( at least IP networking ) is not quite so simple, at least not on my network ;) Also, IP-networking is much slower on windows than on a linux or OS/X machine. And there are a lot of things that windows can't do. For example, I had to set the MTU values for all windows client machines on my network manually to 1492 for my DSL line >:(
And it can't do masquerading and IP-tunneling, among other things. "Windows connection sharing" is not an alternative.

But you have a point, buying licenses for Windows is probably a lot cheaper than schooling hundreds of employees :( I just find it odd that such a department is forced to make compromises? They're supposed to be drowning in money after 9-11. Compatibility to other systems also shouldn't be an issue.


Zombie: that's interesting. I think it would be more appropriate to say that two devils exchanged parts of their souls ;)


Primus: my Linux boxes have nearly 100% uptime ( one of them has been running for almost two years now, time to do some upgrading ). My XP machines still crash once in a while, for no apparent reason, even fresh installations.

But the best thing about open source is really that you're only limited by your creativity/ spare time.